IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTYTHEODORE ISABELLA,Appellant,v.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCEAPPEAL BOARD,Appellee.

::::::::::

C.A. No: K13A-10-005 (RBY)

Submitted: May 8, 2014
Decided: June 16, 2014

Upon Consideration of Appellant’s Appeal fromthe Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
AFFIRMED
ORDER

Theodore Isabella, Pro se.
Catherine Damavandi, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,Wilmington, Delaware for Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

Young, J.

Isabella v. UIABC.A. No.: 13A-10-005 (RBY)
June 16, 2014

SUMMARY
Theodore A. Isabella (“Claimant”) has filed an appeal challenging adecision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“the Board”). In its
decision, the Board found that Claimant defrauded the Department of Labor,
Division of Unemployment Insurance (“the Division”), in order to receive benefits
to which he was not entitled. On appeal, the issue before the Court is whether theBoard correctly determined that Claimant committed fraud by failing to disclose
his weekly earnings to the Division.
Claimant was required to report any and all earnings while collecting
unemployment benefits. That requirement was incumbent upon Claimant, pursuant
to the Division’s Unemployment Handbook, which was provided to Claimant. By
his own admission, Claimant failed to report his earnings for three weeks, though
he was prompted to do so when filing his weekly claims. Therefore, Claimant ischarged with knowingly failing to disclose a material fact with the intent to obtainbenefits to which he was not lawfully entitled. Accordingly, Appellant is
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The Board's decision is
supported by substantial evidence, and is free from legal error. The Decision of theBoard is AFFIRMED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits effective March
11, 2012. Pursuant to this claim, he collected a weekly benefit amount of $330.00.
Claimant was employed as Adjunct Faculty by Wilmington University(“Employer”) from September 4, 2012 through the present. Claimant was2

Isabella v. UIAB
C.A. No.: 13A-10-005 (RBY)
June 16, 2014

employed part-time, and was compensated by each course taught. In a letter dated
September 19, 2012, the Division informed Claimant that his unemploymentinsurance benefits had been suspended, because Employer indicated that he had
returned to work. The letter instructed Claimant to contact the Division no later
than September 26, 2012. According to Claimant, in the Board’s Transcript of theAdministrative Hearing held on September 4, 2013, he contacted the Division on
September 25, 2012.
Claimant taught two, seven week block courses starting on January 7, 2013.
He earned a total amount of $4,130.00, which was divided into seven weekly gross
payments of $590.00 during the weeks of the course. A quarterly cross-match
audit of Employer determined that Claimant earned wages which he did not fully
report to the Division while he continued to claim and collect unemploymentbenefits. As weekly pay authorization records from the Telebenefits Systemevidenced, Claimant did not report any earnings from compensable weeks endingin January 12, January 19, or January 26, 2013. For the compensable week ending
February 2, 2013, Claimant reported $256.00 in earnings. For the compensable
week ending February 9, 2013, Claimant reported $148 in earnings. For thecompensable week ending February 16, 2013, he reported $256 in earnings. For
the three weeks Claimant actually did report his earnings, the amount reported wasless than the amount he reported by Employer.
On March 3, 2013, the Division Claims Deputy (“the Claims Deputy”)
found that Claimant was disqualified for receipt of benefits, pursuant to Title 19,Section 3314(6), and fraud, effective for the week ending in January 12, 2013 until3

Isabella v. UIABC.A. No.: 13A-10-005 (RBY)
June 16, 2014

the week ending in January 11, 2014. Furthermore, the Claims Deputy noted thatClaimant would also be responsible for any overpayment of benefits received.
On August 14, 2013, Claimant sent a letter and Notice of Appeal to theDivision. Claimant sent another letter to the Division on September 3, 2013. On
September 4, 2013, an Administrative Hearing was held before the Division
Referee (“the Referee”), which was recorded in a transcript (“the HearingTranscript”). On September 6, 2013, Claimant sent an Addendum Letter to theDivision to supplement his testimony from the Administrative Hearing.
On September 10, 2013, the Referee issued a decision affirming the Claims
Deputy’s decision. On September 24, 2013, Claimant filed an Appeal Request
Notification to appeal the Referee’s decision. On October 2, 2013, the Board
conducted a Review Hearing. On October 10, 2013, the Board rendered an opinion
affirming the Referee’s decision below. On November 20, 2013, Claimant filed an
appeal to this Court. On March 14, 2014, Claimant filed an Opening Brief. The
Board has not filed an Answering Brief in this matter.
STANDARD OF REVIEWFor administrative board appeals, this Court is limited to reviewing whether
the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legalerrors.1 Substantial evidence is that which “a reasonable mind might accept asadequate to support a conclusion.”2 It is “more than a scintilla, but less than1

29 Del C. §10142(d); Avon Prods. v. Lamparski, 203 A.2d 559, 560 (Del. 1972).

2Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. Super. 1981) (citing Consolo v. Fed. Mar.
Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)).
4

Isabella v. UIAB
C.A. No.: 13A-10-005 (RBY)
June 16, 2014

preponderance of the evidence.” 3 An abuse of discretion will be found if the Board“acts arbitrarily or capriciously...exceeds the bounds of reason in view of thecircumstances and has ignored recognized rules of law or practice so as to produce
injustice.”4 Where an agency has interpreted and applied a statute, the court’s
review is de novo.5 In the absence of an error of law, lack of substantial evidenceor abuse of discretion, the Court will not disturb the decision of the board.6DISCUSSION
It is Claimant’s position that he had no intent to defraud the Division.
Claimant argues that he returned every form he received from the Division that hewas required to complete. According to Claimant’s Appeal Letter, he also
contacted the Division’s Office on September 25, 2012 by letter, asking a
representative how he should calculate and report wages he anticipated receivingfrom Employer over the course of seven weeks. Claimant claims that he relied on
this representative’s guidance, and filed his claims accordingly.
However, on appeal, Claimant does not refute the fact that he failed tonotify the Division of the wages he received during the first three weeks ofreceiving unemployment benefits. The Hearing Transcript indicates that, when

3Id. (quoting Cross v. Calfano, 475 F.Supp. 896, 898 (D. Fla. 1979).

4

Delaware Transit Corp. v. Roane, 2011 WL 3793450, at *5 (Del. Super. Aug. 24,2011) (quoting Straley v. Advanced Staffing, Inc., 2009 WL 1228572, at *2 (Del. Super. April30, 2009).
5Lehman Brothers Bank v. State Bank Commissioner, 937 A.2d 95, 102 (Del. 2007).

6Anchor Motor Freight v. Ciabattoni, 716 A.2d 154, 156 (Del. 1998).
5

Isabella v. UIAB
C.A. No.: 13A-10-005 (RBY)
June 16, 2014

Claimant answered the Telebenefits question sent by the Division, asking him toreport his earnings for the week, Claimant put “zero" as the amount. In defense of
his failure to notify the Division of the wages he earned from Employer, Claimant
asserts that he misunderstood the Division’s definition of an “earned” wage.
According to Claimant’s testimony from the Hearing Transcript before theDivision on September 4, 2013, Claimant interpreted an “earned” wage to mean awage that he received.
However, regardless of Claimant’s alleged lack of intent to defraud theDivision, Claimant had received the Division’s Unemployment Handbook (“theUnemployment Handbook”), which clearly states that earnings are to be reported
when they are earned, not when they are received. According to the Hearing
Transcript, Claimant stated that he “probably did not read” the UnemploymentHandbook. The Division provided Claimant with the tools to understand how toreport his wages correctly. Claimant was required to report any and all earnings
while collecting unemployment benefits. He would have known that had he readthe Unemployment Handbook.
By his own admission, Claimant failed to report his earnings for three weeks(as he was prompted to do, when filing his weekly claims). Therefore, Claimant
knowingly failed to disclose a material fact with the intent to obtain benefits towhich he was not lawfully entitled.7 The Board's decision is supported by7

Fraud is defined as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by
one person to another with knowledge of its falsity, and for the purpose of inducing the otherperson to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Division of
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Referee’s Decision, September 10, 2013. Black’s Law
Dictionary, P. 548, 2005.
6

Isabella v. UIAB
C.A. No.: 13A-10-005 (RBY)
June 16, 2014

substantial evidence, and is free from legal error.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Robert B. YoungJ.
RBY/lmc
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Mr. Isabella, Pro se
Catherine Damavandi, Esq.
Opinion Distribution
File7