Christopher Hall v. Director, Division of Workforce Services

2024 Ark. App. 215, 685 S.W.3d 925

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: March 27, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 215 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. E-23-8

CHRISTOPHER HALL Opinion Delivered March 27, 2024 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW V. [NO. 2022-BR-01939] DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN APPELLEE PART

WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge

Christopher Hall appeals the decision of the Board of Review (Board) affirming an

Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) finding that he is liable to repay $2,904 in overpaid

unemployment benefits. We affirm in part and remand in part.

On July 5, 2022, the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services (DWS) issued a notice

of agency determination to Hall finding that he was not disqualified from benefits but that

“because the earnings amounts are not correct [he] may have been overpaid benefits in which

case a Notice of Non Fraud Overpayment Determination will be issued.” The July 5 notice

went on to inform Hall that if he “disagree[d] that the earnings amounts are incorrect [he]

should file an appeal.” Hall did not timely appeal the initial determination, and the Tribunal

dismissed his claim. The Board affirmed the Tribunal’s dismissal. Hall appealed the Board’s

decision, which we affirm without opinion today in Hall v. Director (E-23-7). On August 11, DWS issued a notice of nonfraud overpayment determination finding

that Hall was required to repay $2,904 in unemployment benefits that he received for the

weeks ending April 4 through April 25, 2020. Hall timely appealed this determination to

the Tribunal. The Tribunal held a hearing on September 6, and Hall testified about his

misunderstanding that he was also required to report earnings from a separate employer,

saying that he “thought [i]t was a separate, completely-unrelated matter.” The Tribunal

affirmed DWS’s determination, finding that Hall incorrectly reported his earnings, which

caused the overpayment, and that the overpayment was not the direct result of DWS error.

Hall appealed to the Board, which affirmed the Tribunal, finding that the overpayment of

benefits was not due to agency error but due to claimant’s misreporting; thus, “there is no

consideration of waiver.” Hall brings this appeal of the Board’s decision finding him liable

to repay the overpayment of benefits totaling $2,904.

Board decisions are upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. Blanton v.

Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 205, at 1, 575 S.W.3d 186, 187. Substantial evidence is relevant

evidence that reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id., 575

S.W.3d at 188. In appeals of unemployment-compensation cases, we view the evidence and

all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board’s

findings. Id. at 1–2, 575 S.W.3d at 188. Even if there is evidence that could support a

different decision, our review is limited to whether the Board could have reasonably reached

its decision on the basis of the evidence presented. Id. at 2, 575 S.W.3d at 188. However,

2 our function on appeal is not merely to rubber-stamp decisions arising from the Board. Id.

at 2, 575 S.W.3d at 188.

This court’s decision in Carman v. Director confirmed that, for purposes of

overpayment of state unemployment benefits, the repayment may be waived “if the director

finds that the overpayment was received as a direct result of an error by the Division of

Workforce Services and that its recovery would be against equity and good conscience.”

Carman v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 51, at 7, 660 S.W.3d 852, 857 (quoting Ark. Code Ann. §

11-10-532(b)(2)(A) (Supp. 2021)). Carman also holds that the repayment of Federal Pandemic

Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits may be waived if the State determines that

the payment of the FPUC benefits was without fault on the part of the worker and that

repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience. Id. at 8, 660 S.W.3d at 857

(citing 15 U.S.C. § 9023(f)(2)).

The record indicates that Hall received regular state unemployment benefits totaling

$504 and FPUC benefits totaling $2,400 between April 4 and April 25, 2020. Because the

Board found that the overpayment of state unemployment benefits was not due to agency

error, substantial evidence supports its decision requiring Hall to repay the $504 in regular

state unemployment benefits that he received between the weeks ending April 4 and April

25, 2020.

In addition, Hall received FPUC benefits totaling $2,400 during that time. However,

the Board failed to make any findings regarding the federal-benefit-waiver analysis outlined

in Carman. If adequate findings of fact are not made on the issue presented, we remand to

3 the Board for findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which to perform proper appellate

review. Pillow v. Dir., 2022 Ark. App. 341, at 4. We therefore remand to the Board for

findings of fact and conclusions of law, utilizing the federal-benefit-waiver analysis, regarding

whether payment of the $2,400 in FPUC benefits that Hall received during the relevant time

period was without fault on his part and, if so, whether repayment would be contrary to

equity and good conscience.

Affirmed in part; remanded in part.

VIRDEN and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Christopher Hall, pro se appellant.

Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.