IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARIE A. QUEEN,

 Appellant, 

 v.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 

APPEAL BOARD, 

 Appellee.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

C.A. No. N22A-10-002 VLM

ORDER

Submitted: June 12, 2023 

Decided: August 14, 2023 

Upon Consideration of Appellant’s Appeal of the Decision of the Unemployment 

Insurance Appeal Board, AFFIRMED. 

Marie A. Queen, Appellant, pro se. 

Victoria Groff, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, 820 N. 

French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for Appellee Unemployment Insurance 

Appeal Board.

Victoria Counihan, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, 820 N. 

French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for the Delaware Division of 

Unemployment Insurance, a statutory party-in-interest. 

MEDINILLA, J. 
2 

I. INTRODUCTION

Claimant-Appellant Marie A. Queen (“Claimant”) appeals two overpayment 

determinations by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the “Board”) and 

seeks review of a final order of fraud that led to her disqualification of 

unemployment benefits. Upon consideration of the arguments, submissions of the 

parties, and the record in this case, the Board’s decision is upheld.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On March 29, 2020, Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance 

benefits with the Delaware Division of Unemployment Insurance (“Division”) after 

working full-time for A.S. Academy of Learning, Inc. (“Employer”) for 

approximately five days in March of 2020.

1

 Claimant claimed that she was still 

employed by Employer but working part-time.

2

 A Claims Deputy of the Division 

awarded her a weekly benefit of $400.00 for unemployment insurance benefits.3

 

While receiving unemployment insurance benefits, Claimant also received a 

federal benefit of $600.00 per week of Federal Pandemic Unemployment 

Compensation (FPUC) 4 under the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and 

Economic Security Act).5

 

1

 R. 154. 

2

 R. 157. 

3

 R. 70. 

4

 R. 49, 50, 165, 166. 

5

 R. 49–50. 
3 

The Division thereafter received information from Employer that Claimant 

received gross wages of $1,898.20 from week ending April 4, 2020 to week ending 

May 9, 2020.6

 Yet Claimant reported earnings of $988.00 for the same period.7 The 

Division was further informed by Claimant’s subsequent employer—the Delaware 

Department of Transportation—that Claimant had received short-term disability 

benefits during portions of the same period in April of 2020.

8

 

On February 3, 2022, a Division Claims Deputy determined that Claimant was 

disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to fraud under 19 Del. C. § 

3314(6),9 finding that Claimant had knowingly underreported wages earned while 

receiving unemployment benefits.10 

Claimant appealed the Claims Deputy’s disqualification determination to an 

Appeals Referee.11 After a full hearing, the Appeals Referee affirmed the Claims 

Deputy’s determination.12 Claimant did not appeal the Appeals Referee’s decision. 

Accordingly, the disqualification determination became final on March 31, 2022. 

6

 R. 154. 

7

 R. 155. 

8

 R. 154. 

9

 R 154–55. 

10 Id. 11 R. 156. 

12 R. 157–59. The decision of the Appeals Referee stated that the information from her subsequent 

employer, the Department of Transportation as to Claimant’s short-term disability benefits is 

incorrect. Accordingly, the Referee did not consider any facts related to Claimant’s disability 

benefits, and only based the decision on Claimants failure to report her wages during the period at 

issue. R. 156–58. 
4 

The Division then initiated administrative proceedings against Claimant to 

recuperate overpayments under 19 Del. C. § 3325. On April 28, 2022, a Division 

Claims Deputy issued two overpayment determinations; $1,700.00 for 

unemployment benefits,

13 and $3,000.00 for FPUC benefits.14 Claimant appealed 

both determinations.15 After a full hearing, an Appeals Referee upheld the Claims 

Deputy’s determinations.16 Claimant appealed.

17 The Board affirmed,18 and found 

that Claimant was liable to repay the money.19 

On October 6, 2022, Claimant filed this timely appeal of the Board’s decision 

regarding overpayment determinations. In her opening brief, she also submits bank 

statements not presented to the Division nor the Board, and further challenges the 

Division’s disqualification determination related to its findings of fraud. 

On December 16, 2022, the Division filed its Answering Brief. On December 

19, 2022, the Board filed its Answering Brief. The matter is ripe for review.

III. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS 

Claimant argues that although she was accused of making a fraudulent claim, 

she has received “no help” for what she contends amounts to a mistake.

20 She further 

13 R. 74–76. 

14 R. 151–53. 

15 R. 104, 113, 178. 

16 R. 69–73, 147–50. 

17 R. 9–33, 122–25. 

18 R. 4–8. 

19 R. 6. 

20 R. 3. 
5 

argues she did not commit fraud, offers bank statements in support of her position, 

and states she should not be asked to refund monies she did not receive.21 

The Division maintains that since Claimant chose not to appeal the 

determination that disqualified her from receiving benefits, she should be precluded 

from challenging the merits of that disqualification decision in this appeal that relates 

solely to the Board’s decision regarding overpayments.22 Simply put, it asks that the 

Board’s decision be affirmed. 

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal from the Board, this Court’s role is limited to determining whether 

substantial evidence exists to support the Board’s decision and to examine the 

Board’s findings and conclusions for legal error.23 “Substantial evidence” is “such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.”24 “It is not the appellate court’s role to weigh the evidence, determine 

credibility questions or make its own factual findings, but merely to decide if the 

evidence is legally adequate to support the agency’s factual findings.”25

21 Claimant’s Opening Br. 

22 The Division’s Answering Br., at 3–4. 

23 Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265 (Del. 1981); 19 Del. C. § 3323(a) (“In 

any judicial proceeding under this section, the findings of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal 

Board as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, 

and the jurisdiction of the Court shall be confined to questions of law.”).

24 Dean v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 2014 WL 1228647, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 25, 2014) (quotation 

omitted). 

25 McManus v. Christina Serv. Co., 1997 WL 127953, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 1997). 
6 

V. DISCUSSION

This matter relates, in part, to the Division’s determination regarding 

Claimant’s disqualification of unemployment benefits based on fraud, and one 

appealable issue that focuses on the Board’s determination of overpayment amounts 

ordered be repaid by Claimant. These separate determinations of disqualification 

and overpayment must be taken in order.

A. Division’s Disqualification Determination Is Not Reviewable

The record is clear that in February of 2022, a Division Claims Deputy 

determined that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits 

due to fraud under 19 Del. C. § 3314(6).

26 Claimant appealed the Claims Deputy’s 

disqualification determination to an Appeals Referee, 27 who then affirmed the 

Claims Deputy’s determination after a full hearing.

28 

Claimant however did not appeal the Appeals Referee’s decision. 

Accordingly, on March 31, 2022, the disqualification determination became a final, 

non-appealable decision. 29 This Court “cannot invoke its appellate jurisdiction 

26 R 154–55. 

27 R. 156. 

28 R. 157–59. The decision of the Appeals Referee stated that the information from her subsequent 

employer, the Department of Transportation as to Claimant’s short-term disability benefits is 

incorrect. Accordingly, the Referee did not consider any facts related to Claimant’s disability 

benefits, and only based the decision on Claimants failure to report her wages during the period at 

issue. R. 156–58. 

29 See 19 Del. C. § 3320 (providing that a decision of an Appeals Referee becomes final unless 

within 10 days after the date of notification or mailing of that decision further appeal is initiated).
7 

unless an appeal is submitted within the time frame required by law.”30 Claimant

offers no reason for why she did not appeal. Since Claimant did not exercise her 

right to appeal to the Board, the disqualification determination by the Division is 

final and unreviewable. Claimant’s attempts to piggyback her disqualification 

determination to this appeal are impermissible.31 Thus, the Court cannot consider 

Claimant’s arguments related to fraud or her protests that she was improperly 

disqualified. 

B. Board’s Overpayment Decision Is Supported by Substantial Evidence

Instead, the sole issue before this Court involves the Board’s decision related 

to the recoupment of overpaid benefits, as governed by 19 Del. C. § 3325. An 

individual who fails to report wages, and is subsequently disqualified from receiving 

benefits, is required to repay all benefits received while being ineligible to receive 

them.32 And that “person shall be so liable regardless of whether such sum was 

received through fraud or mistake . . . .”33 

Here, Claimant asserts both that she did not commit fraud and that there was 

some sort of a mistake. The Division made its determination of disqualification due 

30 Smith v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2021 WL 4593386, at *4 (Del. Super. Oct. 6, 2021) 

(citation omitted). 

31 See Smith v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2013 WL 1718059, at * 1 (Del. Super. Apr. 22, 

2013); Starcks v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2013 WL 4848101, at *5 (Del. Super. July 30, 

2013). 

32 Smith, 2013 WL 1718059, at *1 (citation omitted). 

33 See 19 Del. C. § 3325. 
8 

to fraud. Regardless of the reason, following the rationale under Smith v. 

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board,

34 the Board properly found that once the 

disqualification was final, the only issue was whether Claimant received benefits 

when she was not entitled to receive them. And whether a proper overpayment 

determination was made under 19 Del. C. § 3325. It was.

This Court finds substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions. In 

affirming the overpayment determinations, the Board properly considered the record 

below, as determined by the Referee, and found that Claimant received proper 

notice, that the amount calculated was accurate, and that the overpayment notice was 

properly sent to Claimant because she was found to be disqualified from receiving 

unemployment benefits.35 The Board properly affirmed the Referee’s decision to 

uphold the Division Claims Deputy’s determination that Claimant was liable for an 

overpayment amount of benefits in the amount of $1,700.00 for unemployment 

benefits and $3,000.00 for FPUC benefits, respectively. 

The Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal 

errors. Thus, the Board’s Decision is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Vivian L Medinilla

 Vivian L. Medinilla

 Judge

34 Smith v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2013 WL 1718059, at * 1 (Del. Super. Apr. 22, 2013). 35 R. 5.