Bugg v. Director, Department of Workforce Services, and City of Hot Springs

2020 Ark. App. 206

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: April 1, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Reason: I attest to the Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 206 accuracy and integrity of this document ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Date: 2021-07-06 12:19:27 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION II 9.7.5 No. E-19-77

Opinion Delivered: April 1, 2020 DANNY BUGG APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. BOARD OF REVIEW [NO. 2019-BR-00214] DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, AND CITY OF HOT SPRINGS APPELLEES AFFIRMED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Appellant Danny Bugg seeks review of the Arkansas Board of Review’s (Board’s)

denial of his application for unemployment benefits. We affirm the Board’s decision

summarily.

This is the third occasion for this court to consider Bugg’s appeal. In our first opinion

in this case, Bugg v. Director, 2019 Ark. App. 137 (Bugg I),1 we remanded the matter to the

Board because it failed to rule on the specific argument Bugg presented on appeal: whether

Bugg’s employer, the City of Hot Springs, had the authority to interpret an email written

by Bugg as expressing his intent to resign from his employment. Id. at 4. At the same time,

we noted significant deficiencies in Bugg’s abstract and addendum; however, we did not

order rebriefing because we had previously granted Bugg’s motion to file a nonconforming

1 A recitation of the facts underlying Bugg’s appeal may be found in this court’s opinion in Bugg I. brief. Instead, we cautioned Bugg that pro se litigants in Arkansas are held to the same

standards as licensed attorneys and that similar or other deficiencies would not be overlooked

in any subsequent filings with this court. Id. at 2 n.1.

Following this court’s remand in Bugg I, the Board ruled on the specific questions

Bugg presented, and Bugg once again appealed and submitted another unacceptable brief to

this court. In Bugg v. Director, 2020 Ark. App. 41 (Bugg II), we ordered rebriefing to address a

host of issues relating to Bugg’s failure to correct the deficiencies that existed in his earlier

presentation. We also advised Bugg that any deficiencies we identified were not meant to be

taken as an exhaustive list, and we expressly cautioned him that if he failed to “cure the

deficiencies listed above and any others that may be discovered on his review of our rules and

his briefs, the [decision of the Board] may be affirmed for noncompliance with [Arkansas

Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (2019)]. Bugg II, 2020 Ark. App. 41, at 6 (emphasis added).

Bugg has once more offered a brief to this court that does not comply with our rules

or with our previous directives to him. For example, his abstract omits a crucial exchange.

During Bugg’s hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, the hearing officer posed a series of

questions to Bugg concerning an email that he sent to the Hot Springs Chief of Police. This

omitted exchange goes to the crux of Bugg’s argument on appeal: what was his intent when

he sent the email? In the email, Bugg stated that “January 5, 2018 would be as prime a day

[as any] to make my exit from the City of Hot Springs.” Bugg’s employer interpreted this

email as a statement of his intent to retire; Bugg disputed that this was his intent. In the

omitted exchange, the hearing officer specifically asked, “Could someone look at that email

and come to a different conclusion as to what your purpose may have been? . . . [W]as that

2 subject to any other type of interpretation?” Bugg agreed that it could be, “based on the

person reading this.” Asked specifically whether his employer could have interpreted the

email to mean that he was resigning, Bugg conceded, “That’s very possible.” This exchange

is omitted entirely from the abstract; therefore, the abstract does not comply with out rules.

Rule 4-2(a)(5)(A) requires the abstract to contain “[a]ll material information recorded

in a transcript.” Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) directs the abstract to be “an impartial condensation” of

that material information. Bugg has made “intent” the primary issue in this case, and he

failed to abstract a critical portion of his testimony that is not favorable to his argument; thus,

his abstract is not impartial. See Adams v. Moody, 2017 Ark. App. 686 (ordering rebriefing

when the appellant’s abstract included only testimony that was favorable to him).

Perhaps more critically, however, in his current brief, Bugg has failed to include his

petition for review to this court in the addendum. In order to acquire jurisdiction, we must

have a timely filing of a petition for review from a denial of unemployment benefits. See

Cockrell v. Dir., 67 Ark. App. 132, 133, 992 S.W.2d 181, 181 (1999). In other words, the

petition for review in an unemployment-benefits appeal is the functional equivalent of a

notice of appeal. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires that the addendum to the

appellant’s brief contain copies of nontranscript documents in the record on appeal that are

essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction; the rule expressly states that the

addendum must include the notice of appeal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i); see also Beggs v.

Beggs, 2014 Ark. App. 706; Coulter v. Griffin, 2013 Ark. App. 635, at 1 (ordering rebriefing

when pro se appellant neglected to include her notice of appeal in the addendum because

3 “we must review [the notice of appeal] to determine the threshold question of whether our

jurisdiction has been properly invoked”).

In both Adams, supra, and Coulter, supra, we ordered rebriefing to address deficiencies

in the appellants’ abstracts and addenda. In the instant case, however, we have already given

the appellant multiple opportunities to remedy the problems that were previously identified

in his briefs. Because Bugg has failed to cure those deficiencies despite our warning in Bugg

II about the consequences therefor, we summarily affirm the Board’s decision upholding the

denial of Bugg’s application for unemployment benefits.

Affirmed.

GRUBER, C.J., and HARRISON, J., agree.

Danny Bugg, pro se appellant.

Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellee.