Kathy Hicks v. Director, Division of Workforce Services And John Cage Enterprises

2023 Ark. App. 370

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: September 6, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 370 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. E-22-309

KATHY HICKS Opinion Delivered September 6, 2023 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW V. [NO. 2021-BR-05219]

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES; AND JOHN CAGE ENTERPRISES APPELLEES REMANDED

WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge

Appellant Kathy Hicks appeals an adverse decision of the Arkansas Board of Review

(the “Board”) finding her liable to repay unemployment benefits plus a statutory penalty. We

remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion.

The Division of Workforce Services (the “Division”) issued a notice of fraud

overpayment determination on July 29, 2021, finding Hicks liable to repay benefits in the

amount of $15,025 pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-532(a) (Supp.

2023). The determination was affirmed on appeal first by the Appeal Tribunal (the

“Tribunal”) and then by the Board. The basis for the repayment determination involves an

initial underlying claim for unemployment benefits filed by Hicks on April 7, 2020. In the underlying claim, the Division issued a determination disqualifying Hicks from

receiving these benefits under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-519(a)(1) (Supp.

2023), and its determination was affirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that Hicks

indicated in her claim for benefits that she was working reduced hours but found the

evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated she had not actually worked since March

17, 2020. The Board affirmed the Tribunal’s decision. Hicks’s appeal from the Board’s

decision is also handed down today. Hicks v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 371 (Hicks I).

The basis of the Tribunal’s finding in Hicks I is that Hicks allegedly made a

misrepresentation of fact in the application for benefits that she filed on April 7, 2020.

Because the record on appeal in Hicks I did not contain the April 7 application, we remanded

to supplement the record. Hicks I. We cannot reach the merits of Hicks’s appeal in this case

until there has been a final determination on the underlying unemployment-benefits claim.

Therefore, in light of our disposition in Hicks I, we remand this case until a final

determination is made by the Board in the underlying claim.

Remanded.

VIRDEN and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Kathy Hicks, pro se appellant.

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