2016 UT App 45

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

SHEILA G. WINKLER,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES,

Respondent.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20150342-CA

Filed March 10, 2016

Original Proceeding in this Court

David J. Holdsworth, Attorney for Petitioner

Suzan Pixton, Attorney for Respondent 

Before JUDGES J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., STEPHEN L. ROTH, and 

KATE A. TOOMEY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Sheila G. Winkler petitions for review of the Workforce 

Appeals Board’s (the Board) decision determining that Winkler 

was not entitled to unemployment benefits and requiring her to 

pay back benefits she had previously received.

¶2 In Carbon County v. Workforce Appeals Board, 2013 UT 41, 

308 P.3d 477, our supreme court set forth the standard for our

review of the Board’s decision concerning a person’s request 

for unemployment benefits. See id. ¶ 7. Specifically, such a 

determination is reviewed as a mixed question of fact and law 

that is more fact-like because “this case ‘does not lend itself to 

consistent resolution by a uniform body of appellate precedent.’” 

Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Board’s determinations 

are entitled to deference because “‘the appellate court would be 

in an inferior position to review the “correctness” of the . . . 

decision.’” Id. (citation omitted). The Board’s determination of 
Winkler v. Department of Workforce Services

20150342-CA 2 2016 UT App 45

fault involves the same fact-like inquiry. Accordingly, the 

Board’s determination that Winkler was at fault in obtaining 

benefits for which she did not qualify is entitled to deference.

¶3 Winkler does not argue that the Board erred in 

determining that she was not entitled to the benefits she 

received. Instead, she argues that the Board erred in determining 

that she was at fault for the overpayment and, accordingly, was 

required to pay back the benefits she inappropriately received. 

A claimant is at fault for an overpayment if the elements of 

materiality, control, and knowledge are established. See Utah 

Admin. Code R994-406-301(1). Materiality is established if the 

claimant received benefits to which she was not entitled. See id.

R994-406-301(1)(a). Control is established if “[b]enefits were paid 

based on incorrect information or an absence of information 

which the claimant reasonably could have provided.” Id. R994-

406-301(1)(b). Finally, knowledge is established if “[t]he claimant 

had sufficient notice that the information might be reportable.” 

Id. R994-406-301(1)(c). Additionally,

[t]he claimant is responsible for providing all of the 

information requested by the Department 

regarding his or her Unemployment Insurance 

claim. If the claimant has any questions about his 

or her eligibility for unemployment benefits, or the 

Department’s instructions, the claimant must ask 

the Department for clarification before certifying to 

eligibility. If the claimant fails to obtain 

clarification, he or she will be at fault in any 

resulting overpayment.

Id. R994-406-301(2).

¶4 The Board determined that all three of these elements 

had been met and that Winkler was therefore at fault for the 

overpayment. Winkler claims that there was no evidence of 
Winkler v. Department of Workforce Services

20150342-CA 3 2016 UT App 45

control or knowledge. Evidence in the record supports the 

Board’s findings and conclusions. In applying for benefits, 

Winkler was asked if she had “applied for” or was receiving 

retirement benefits. She answered “No,” despite the fact that she

had applied for retirement benefits. Thus, Winkler gave the 

Board incorrect information. Winkler should have known that 

such information was relevant and reportable.

¶5 The Claimant Guide, which Winkler received when she 

applied for benefits, specifically discusses issues relevant to 

Winkler’s case. The Guide instructs claimants to contact the 

Department of Workforce Services if they apply for or start 

receiving retirement benefits. Further, the Guide states that if a 

claimant receives retroactive retirement benefits covering a 

period of time for which she was also receiving unemployment 

benefits, the claimant will be responsible for the overpayment.

Winkler was “chargeable for the information in the Claimant 

Guide.” Frislie v. Department of Workforce Services, 2011 UT App 

114, ¶ 7, 256 P.3d 229 (per curiam). Moreover, if Winkler had any

questions concerning her eligibility for unemployment benefits 

while she was awaiting retirement benefits she had a 

responsibility to ask the Department for clarification. See Utah 

Admin. Code R994-406-301(2). Thus, evidence supported the 

Board’s decision that Winkler was at fault for the improperly 

paid unemployment benefits.

¶6 Finally, Winkler asserts that rather than requiring her to 

pay back the improperly received benefits, the Board should 

have ordered that the sum be deducted from any future benefits 

payable to her. See Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-406(4)(b) 

(LexisNexis 2015) (stating that the Department may require a 

claimant to repay benefits or may order the sum to be deducted 

from future benefits payable to the claimant). Winker has not 

demonstrated that the Board erred in its interpretation of law or 

in any other way abused its considerable discretion in ordering 
Winkler v. Department of Workforce Services

20150342-CA 4 2016 UT App 45

her to repay the improperly received benefits instead of ordering 

that such funds be deducted from future payments.

¶7 We decline to disturb the decision of the Board.