Vicki Harder v. Director, Division of Workforce Services

2024 Ark. App. 208

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

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 208 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. E-23-23

Opinion Delivered March 27, 2024

VICKI HARDER APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW

V. [NO. 2022-BR-01743]

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN APPELLEE PART

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge In this matter, appellant, Vicki Harder, appeals an adverse ruling of the Board of

Review (Board) affirming an Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) finding that she is required to repay

$581 in unemployment benefits. We affirm in part and remand in part.

I. Background and Procedural History

The record reveals that for the week of September 5, 2020, Harder received $281 in

regular state unemployment benefits and $300 in Lost Wage Assistance (“LWA”). A “Notice

of Nonfraud Overpayment Determination” dated June 2, 2022, found that Harder was

required to repay $581 for the entirety of benefits received the week of September 5, 2020.

The record shows that Harder filed an untimely appeal of the underlying April 26, 2022

agency determination that she had nonfraudulently misreported her earnings for the week

1 in question based on information received from an employer. That determination rendered

her subject to the repayment of the excess benefits she received the week of September 5,

2020, and it provided information on appeal rights. The Board dismissed that underlying

appeal, and that issue is not before us today. Therefore, we now address only the issue of

repayment.

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

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.

2 Code Ann. § 11-10-532(b)(2)(A) (Supp. 2021)). Carman also holds that federal

unemployment benefits repayment may be waived if the State determines that the payment

of the federal benefits was without fault on the part of the individual and that such

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)). Our decision in Rush v. Director, 2023 Ark. App. 276, 668

S.W.3d 520, confirms that the federal overpayment-waiver factors apply to LWA benefits.

In the present case, the Board found that the overpayment of benefits was a result of

Harder’s misreporting her earnings for the week in question. We hold that there is

substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings. Because Harder fails to satisfy the first

prong of her state unemployment-waiver analysis, we affirm the decision requiring Harder

to repay $281 in state unemployment benefits she received the week of September 5, 2020.

However, the Board failed to make any findings regarding the two prongs of the

federal benefit-waiver analysis outlined in Carman. If adequate findings of fact are not made

on the issue presented, we remand to the Board for findings of fact and conclusions of law

on 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-waiver-analysis prongs, regarding repayment of the $300 in LWA Harder received the

week of September 5, 2020.

Affirmed in part; remanded in part.

KLAPPENBACH and WOOD, JJ., agree.

Vicki Harder, pro se appellant.

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