Ontaria Jackson v. Director, Division of Workforce Services

2024 Ark. App. 39, 683 S.W.3d 218

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: January 24, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 39 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. E-22-438

Opinion Delivered January 24, 2024

ONTARIA JACKSON APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW

V. [NO. 2022-BR-00237]

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES REVERSED AND DISMISSED APPELLEE

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge This case returns to us after a remand to supplement the record. Jackson v. Dir., 2023

Ark. App. 511. In this matter, appellant, Ontaria Jackson, appeals an adverse ruling of the

Board of Review (Board) affirming the Appeal Tribunal’s (Tribunal’s) finding that she

untimely filed an overpayment-determination appeal and is therefore required to repay

unemployment benefits. We reverse and dismiss.

I. Background and Procedural History

On April 5, 2021, the Division of Workforce Services (DWS) issued a “Notice of

Nonfraud Overpayment Determination” finding that Jackson must repay $11,625 in

unemployment benefits for which she had initially been found eligible but was later

disqualified. On December 9, 2021, a tax-intercept letter was mailed to her, informing her

1 that this amount could also be garnished from any government tax refunds to which she may

be entitled. On December 22, 2021, she filed an appeal of the overpayment determination

to the Tribunal.

The record indicates that after a hearing on Ontaria’s appeal of the underlying

unemployment-benefits disqualification determination, the Tribunal overturned her

disqualification in a decision mailed May 20, 2021. It specifically found that she was

discharged due to lack of work and was eligible to receive unemployment benefits. This is

the last action taken on the underlying benefits claim and therefore a final agency decision.

II. Standard of Review

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

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

that reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. 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. 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 as a result of the evidence presented. Id. However,

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

Thomas v. Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 468, 587 S.W.3d 612; Wilson v. Dir., 2017 Ark. App. 171,

517 S.W.3d 427.

III. Analysis

2 Ontaria’s argument regarding lack of timeliness in filing the overpayment appeal is

that she previously received an agency decision in her favor allowing her benefits claim. She

argues that she appealed only because she received a tax-intercept letter that contradicted the

official agency qualification determination. We find this argument persuasive. The record

supports Ontaria’s claims of conflicting decisions, letters, and communications regarding

overpayment requirement. At her hearing before the Tribunal on January 18, 2022, the

hearing officer conceded that the notice of nonfraud overpayment should be reversed

because of her successful appeal on the underlying merits, yet the Tribunal dismissed the

overpayment appeal. Therefore, the Board lacked substantial evidence that Ontaria’s late

overpayment appeal was not due to circumstances beyond her control due to the

contradictory government-sourced correspondence Ontaria received. We therefore reverse

the Board’s decision on this issue.

Because Ontaria’s original denial of benefits was reversed by the Tribunal in a final

agency decision, there is now no evidence of her receiving benefits to which she was not

entitled, as required for pursuit of nonfraudulent repayment under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-

10-532(b) (Supp. 2023). There is now no overpayment to collect, so this matter is dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

GLADWIN and WOOD, JJ., agree.

Ontaria Jackson, pro se appellant.

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