In re the Matter of: Matthew Chandler

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-1594

In re the Matter of: Matthew Chandler

Filed August 15, 2022
Affirmed
Bryan, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 46331691-4

Craig A. Brandt, Megan J. Renslow, Moss & Barnett, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator
Matthew Chandler)

Keri Phillips, Anne B. Froelich, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota ( for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Klaphake,
Judge.*
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BRYAN, Judge
Relator appeals the unemployment law judge ’s (ULJ) decision that he is ineligible
for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) . More specifically, relator contests the
ULJ’s determination that the COVID -19 pandemic did not cause relator’s asserted change
in employment . Because the ULJ’s analysis of causation was based on a credibility
determination, we defer to the ULJ and affirm the decision denying PUA .

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
FACTS
On May 10, 2020, relator Matthew Chandler applied for regular unemployment
benefits. Respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development ( DEED)
determined Chandler did not qualify for regular unemployment benefits because he had
not earned sufficient wages in his base period. Chandler also applied for PUA. DEED
determined that Chandler was also ineligible for PUA starting May 10, 2020, because the
COVID- 19 pandemic did not result in Chandler’s unemployment. Chandler appealed the
initial determination and proceeded to a hearing.
At the evidentiary hearing , Chandler testified that in the last two years, he was a
self-employed handyman who also di d lawncare and snow removal. He stated that he
applied for unemployment benefits because he “wasn’t an essential worker,” and “couldn’t
even go out of the house without getting a ticket.” Before the pandemic, he explained that
he obtained work by going door-to-door, asking residents if they had any work for him.
Chandler testified that before the pandemic, he worked “probably 35, 40 hours a week,
maybe more sometimes, maybe less,” but “an average of 40,” including the time looking
for work. In his testimony, he claimed to earn a monthly income of $3,000.
Chandler also testified that since the onset of the pandemic, “nobody would answer
the doors anymore ,” so he was unable to find work. He explained, “ it’s really not easy
anymore, because people don’t like to answer the doors. I mean, they talk to me through
the door and stuff but I mean, I still go out every day and l ook for work, but I haven’t been
able to find much work lately.” Chandler testified that after the stay -at-home order was
3
lifted, he still tried to get jobs door -to-door, but people were “wary about even letting
anybody into their home, or into their yard even.”
When asked whether he tried other ways of looking for work, Chandler replied that
he had not made changes to his job- seeking methods. He also acknowledged that it was
harder for him to find jobs outside of his immediate neighborhood now because he no
longer has a car. Chandler testified that he did not look for jobs using websites like
Craigslist because “I like to stick to my handyman self -employment because I seem to
make a lot of money that way.” When asked for documentation that could corroborate his
testimony regarding his income and the jobs he obtained before the pandemic , Chandl er
said he had some receipts, but he had no documentation for most jobs. The ULJ held the
record open for Chandler to submit tax documentation of his income before the pandemic.
Chandler submitted a copy of a page from an unofficial, 2019 federal income tax document.
The tax form submitted to the ULJ showed a total annual income of $13,000 for 2019,
before the pandemic.
The ULJ issued findings of fact and decision, disbelieving Chandler’s testimony and
finding Chandler ineligible for PUA:
Despite Chandle r’s claims, the [ULJ] did not find
Chandler’s testimony about the amount of work he performed
prior to the pandemic or that he has not been able to find any
work since the start of the pandemic credible because it was
vague and not probable and because it conflicted, at times, with
the information Chandler provided to the Department when he
first applied for unemployment benefits . . . . The [ULJ] also
did not find Chandler’s testimony that he has not been able to
find any work at all since the start of the pandemic credible
because it is not plausible. It is highly unlikely that individuals
are still unwilling to let Chandler mow their lawns or come into
4
their homes due to safety concerns as case numbers decline and
vaccination rates increase.

Chandler filed a request for reconsideration and the ULJ issued an order of
affirmation, determining that the initial determination was correct and concluding that the
added documentation submitted by Chandler with his request for reconsideration d id not
demonstrate that he had steady work before the pandemic . Chandler appeals.
DECISION
Chandler challenges the ineligibility determination, arguing that the ULJ erred in
finding that the pandemic did not cause a change in Chandler’s employment.1 Because the
error specifically relates to the ULJ’s decision to disregard Chandler’s testimony regarding
his change in employment and what caused his change in employment, this argument raises
a challenge to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. We defer to the ULJ’s credibilit y
determinations and affirm the ULJ’s findings.
The relevant portions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
(CARES Act) are codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 9021-9034 (2020) and authorize PUA payments
to “covered in dividuals.” 15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3). A “covered individual” includes, in
relevant part, an individual who “is not eligible for regular compensation or extended

1 Chandler’s brief includes a section arguing that as a matter of law, PUA extends to
independent contractors. See Matter of Muse , 956 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. App. 2021)
(observing that although state unemployment law bars “gig economy workers” and
independent contractors from eligibility for regular unemployment benefits, such workers
are not categorically disqualified from eligibility for PUA.) Because Chandler
acknowledges that a causal link between the pandemic and an asserted employment change
is still required, even for independent contractors, and because we affirm the ULJ’s factual
determination that the pandemic did not cause a change in Chandler’s employment, we
need not address any legal argument regarding independent contractors.
5
benefits under State or Federal law,” “is otherwise able to work and available to work
within t he meaning of applicable State law,” and “is unemployed, partially unemployed,
or unable or unavailable to work” as a result of one of the 11 pandemic -related reasons
enumerated in Section 9021. Id. Chandler argues he is eligible because on e of the
pandemic-related reasons enumerated in Section 9021 covers individuals who are
“unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work because the COVID-
19 public health emergency has severely limited his or her ability to continue performing
the individual’s customary work activities and has thereby forced the individual to suspend
such activities.” U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 16-
20 (Apr. 5, 2020) at I -6; see also 15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(kk).
Pursuant to the applicable standards of review, we determine whether the ULJ’s
factual findings are supported “by substantial evidence in view of the hearing record as
submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(5) (2020). 2 “Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Posey v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 879 N.W.2d 662, 66 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation
omitted). In addition, this court reviews “findings of fact in the light most favor able to the
ULJ’s decision.” Fay v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 860 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Minn. App.

2 State law applies to the administration of PUA payments and “[t]he provisions of the
applicable state law that apply to claims for PUA include,” in relevant part,
“[d]eterminations, redeterminations, appeals, and hearings.” U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 16-20 (Apr. 5, 2020) at I-9; 20 C.F.R. 625.11
(2020). Thus, the PUA program incorporates, inter alia, Minnesota Statutes sections
268.105, subd. 7(d) (2020), which governs this court’s review of administrative
unemployment decisions . Pursuant to that statute , this court determines whether factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence.
6
2015). An applicant’s entitlement to unemployment benefits must be determined based
upon the information available without regard to a burden of proof. Minn. Stat. § 268.069,
subd. 2 (2020). Importantly, we must defer to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. See
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006) (holding that this court
defers to the ULJ’s credibility determinations on appella te review); see also Sefkow v.
Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988) (holding that appellate courts do not reweigh
evidence on appeal).
Chandler disputes the factual finding that his inability to work was not a result of
the COVID- 19 pandemic, arguing that the ULJ erred when it did not credit his testimony
relating to what caused his change in employment . Because we must defer to the ULJ’s
credibility determinations, we do not accept Chandler’s argument. T he U LJ made an
adverse credibility determination regarding Chandler’s testimony in several key respects.
For example, the ULJ did not believe Chandler’s testimony regarding his pre -pandemic
income; the effectiveness of his pre -pandemic job -seeking efforts; hi s present inability to
find work, and the stated cause of his present inability to find work. The ULJ’s decision
not to give much, if any, weight to Chandler’s testimony regarding his pre -pandemic
income is supported by the discrepancy between Chandler’s testimony that he earned
$3,000 monthly in 2019 and the supplemental income tax document showing a total of only
$13,000 in gross annual income for that year. In addition, Chandler testified that he did
not keep receipts or documentation of his work pre -pandemic so there is no way to use
such documentation to corroborate his testimony.
7
The ULJ further explained its adverse credibility determination, c haracterizing
Chandler’s testimony regarding causation as “vague” and “not plausible.”3 The testimony
that because of the pandemic, “nobody would answer the doors anymore” and people
refuse to allow “anybody into their home, or into their yard even” is vague. It is also a
sweeping, speculative statement applying to all residents and potential customers. The
ULJ has discretion to use its own judgment and common sense when weighing credibility.
See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc. , 726 N.W.2d 525, 532–33 (Minn. App.
2007) (stating that ULJs may rely on a variety of factors when assessing witness credibility,
including the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case, the believability of the facts
asserted by the witness, and the ULJ’s own good judgment, and common sense).
Finally, portions of Chandler’s testimony undercut his beliefs regarding the cause
of the changes to his employment. When asked whether he used any new or different
methods to obtain work, including using websites to solicit work, Chandler testified that
he had not made any changes to his job-seeking methods and that because he no longer has

3 To the extent that any part of Chandler’s brief can be construed to argue that the ULJ
improperly took judicial notice of certain facts —in cluding declining COVID cases and
rising vaccination rates during the spring and summer of 2021—we discern no prejudicial
error. Respondent concedes that there was no testimony regarding cases or vaccination
rates. However, because Chandler does not expla in how the reference to case and
vaccination rates in the ULJ’s decision affected the outcome of the proceeding, we need
not determine whether the ULJ erred in referring to case and vaccination trends. Waters v.
Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464- 65 (Minn. 1974) (“[O]n appeal error is never presumed.
It must be made to appear affirmatively before there can be reversal . . . [and] the burden
of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.”); see also State, Dep’t of Labor &
Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to reach
inadequately briefed issue); Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d
133, 135 (Minn. 1971) (declining to reach issue in the absence of prejudicial error).
8
a car, he can only look for jobs in one specific neighborhood. This testimony suggests that
Chandler’s purported change in income could be the result of not having a car anymore or
of refusing to try a variety of job- seeking methods.
For these reasons, the ULJ discount ed Chandler’s testimony that he experienced a
change in employment as a result of the pandemic. We defer to th ese credibilit y
determinations and conclude that the ULJ did not err in making its factual findings.
Affirmed.