Russell-Fowler v. GT Wilmington USA

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 27, 2023
• Docket: N22A-02-001 CLS
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SACKENA RUSSELL FOWLER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. N22A-02-001 CLS GT WILMINGTON USA and ) UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) APPEAL BOARD, ) ) Appellees. ) )

Date Submitted: March 3, 2023 Date Decided: March 27, 2023

Upon Appellant’s Appeal from Division of Unemployment Insurance Board’s Re- Determination Decision. AFFIRMED.

ORDER

Sackena Russell-Fowler, Wilmington, DE, 19804, Pro Se, Appellant.

Lauren E.M. Russell, Esquire, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorney for Appellee, GT USA Wilmington LLC.

Victoria W. Counihan, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, Attorney for Appellee, Delaware Division of Unemployment Insurance.

Victoria E. Groff, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, Attorney for Appellee, Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

SCOTT, J. 1 INTRODUCTION Before this Court is Appellant Sackena Russell-Fowler’s (“Ms. Russell-

Fowler”) appeal of a Division Claims Deputy determination Ms. Russell-Fowler

owes benefits back relating to a decision, on remand, from the Delaware

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the “Board”) finding that Ms. Russell-

Fowler did not commit fraud when reporting her wages. For the following reasons,

the matter is AFFIRMED.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This appeal case number began when Ms. Russell-Fowler filed an appeal of a

prior decision of the Board, dated January 24, 2022, which upheld a Division Claims

Deputy decision finding that Ms. Russell-Fowler received PUA benefits to which

she was not entitled through fraud/misrepresentations (the “Fraud Determination”).

The Fraud Determination alleged that for certain weeks while she was collecting

PUA benefits, Ms. Russell-Fowler’s employers reported that she had worked and

earned wages that she either did not report to the Division or she underreported to

the Division. During the appeal of the Fraud Determination in this Court, the

Division discovered both factual and legal errors in the Fraud Determination -

including the weeks included, the amount of misreporting, and the law that applied

to the type of benefits at issue (federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance

2 benefits). On May 24, 2022, the Court ordered the appeal be remanded to the Board

to develop the record and apply the legal standards for PUA fully and accurately.

Upon remand, the Board held another hearing, on June 8, 2022, regarding the

Fraud Determination. The Board considered the corrected evidence presented by Ms.

Russell-Fowler and the Division witness. The Board issued a decision (“Remanded

Decision”) in favor of Ms. Russell-Fowler, finding she did not misrepresent her

wages, and any errors or omissions in reporting her earnings were the result of errors

with the Division’s computer systems. The Remanded Decision reversed the

Division’s Fraud Determination and found that Ms. Russell-Fowler was not

disqualified on the basis of fraud, as previously decided. The Remanded Decision

included a statement that Ms. Russell-Fowler may still have received benefits to

which she was not entitled, through no fault of her own, and that the Board’s decision

finding she did not act fraudulently did not preclude a future determination by the

Division that she is obligated to repay benefits she was not eligible to receive. That

Board decision reversing the Fraud Determination became final on June 26, 2022

and was not appealed by any party to this Court.

On June 19, 2022, because of the Board’s finding of no fraud and computer

error in the reporting of Ms. Russell-Fowler’s other wages, a Division Claims

Deputy issued a new redetermination decision (the “Non-Fraud Determination”).

The Non-Fraud Determination decision found that due to a computer error, on a non- 3 fraud basis and through no fault of the Ms. Russell-Fowler, the Ms. Russell-Fowler’s

other earnings for certain weeks while she was collecting PUA benefits were

reported incorrectly, which resulted in Ms. Russell-Fowler being paid five weeks of

PUA benefits under the federal CARES Act to which she was not entitled. If her

other earnings during the 2 weeks she was collecting PUA benefits had been input

into the computer properly, then for those five weeks, she would not have been

entitled to a PUA benefit because she earned too much in other wages those weeks

to qualify. The Non-Fraud Determination indicated, under to the CARES Act and

the applicable federal regulations, when the Division determines that any claimant

received PUA benefits to which they were not entitled, even if such payment of

benefits was through no fault of the claimant or by mistake of the Division, the

claimant is required to repay the Division the overpayment and the Division is

obligated under that federal law to recover the overpayment. Ms. Russell-Fowler

subsequently appealed the Non-Fraud Determination based upon the following

grounds: (1) the Board already made a decision on 6/16/2022, which became final

on 6/26/2022, (2) The Board stated that they were only focused on PUA and not the

traditional unemployment, and (3) the attorney for the Unemployment Appeals

board produced a document that stated that they are not seeking to uphold its

decision on appeal.

4 STANDARD OF REVIEW On appeal from an administrative board, the Superior Court must determine

if the Board's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record

and free from legal error.1 Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”2 The Court

must review the record to determine if the evidence is legally adequate to support

the Board's factual findings.3 The Court does not “weigh evidence, determine

questions of credibility or make its own factual evidence findings.”4

DISCUSSION

Upon remand, there are two distinct determinations at issue: the Remanded

Decision and Non-Fraud Determination. Ms. Russell-Fowler appealed the Non-

Fraud Determination, which requires her to pay back benefits based upon the

recalculation of her earning benefits, considering the Remanded Decision

determining she did not commit fraud. The Remanded Decision gave a Notice of

Possible Recovery of Overpayment of Benefits. As contained in the notice,

according to 19 Del. C. § 3325, any person who has received any sum of

1 Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, 621 A.2d 340, 342 (Del.1993). 2 Histed v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (citing Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (1981)). 3 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del.1965). 4 Id. at 67. 5 unemployment compensation benefits and is later finally determined to not be

entitled to the funds, shall be liable to repay the overpayment of benefits.

Additionally, the notice warns that when the decision becomes final, the Division of

Unemployment Insurance will proceed to establish and collect any debt that may be

owed due to overpayment so Ms. Russell-Fowler may have been required to pay

back benefits she had already received. Claimants may be overpaid based on no fault

to their own and regardless of fault, the Division is entitled to any moneys overpaid

to any claimant.5

Here, the Remanded Decision became final on June 28, 2022. As a result of

the Remanded Decision, just like the Notice indicated, the Division of

Unemployment Insurance proceeded with establishing whether Ms. Russell-Fowler

was overpaid benefits, resulting in the Non-Fraud Determination. At this point, there

is nothing more for this Court to order but to AFFIRM the Non-Fraud Determination

as the determination was based upon the final Remanded Decision. Ms. Russell-

Fowler is required to pay back the benefits for the weeks in which she was not

eligible.

5 20 CFR § 625.14; 19 DE Code § 3325(a) (2020). 6 CONCLUSION Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is

AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Calvin L. Scott Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.