Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 215

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. E-23-8

CHRISTOPHER HALL

APPELLANT

V.

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 

WORKFORCE SERVICES

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered March 27, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS 

BOARD OF REVIEW

[NO. 2022-BR-01939]

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN 

PART

WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge

Christopher Hall appeals the decision of the Board of Review (Board) affirming an 

Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) finding that he is liable to repay $2,904 in overpaid 

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

On July 5, 2022, the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services (DWS) issued a notice 

of agency determination to Hall finding that he was not disqualified from benefits but that 

“because the earnings amounts are not correct [he] may have been overpaid benefits in which 

case a Notice of Non Fraud Overpayment Determination will be issued.” The July 5 notice 

went on to inform Hall that if he “disagree[d] that the earnings amounts are incorrect [he] 

should file an appeal.” Hall did not timely appeal the initial determination, and the Tribunal 

dismissed his claim. The Board affirmed the Tribunal’s dismissal. Hall appealed the Board’s 

decision, which we affirm without opinion today in Hall v. Director (E-23-7).
2

On August 11, DWS issued a notice of nonfraud overpayment determination finding 

that Hall was required to repay $2,904 in unemployment benefits that he received for the

weeks ending April 4 through April 25, 2020. Hall timely appealed this determination to 

the Tribunal. The Tribunal held a hearing on September 6, and Hall testified about his 

misunderstanding that he was also required to report earnings from a separate employer, 

saying that he “thought [i]t was a separate, completely-unrelated matter.” The Tribunal 

affirmed DWS’s determination, finding that Hall incorrectly reported his earnings, which 

caused the overpayment, and that the overpayment was not the direct result of DWS error. 

Hall appealed to the Board, which affirmed the Tribunal, finding that the overpayment of 

benefits was not due to agency error but due to claimant’s misreporting; thus, “there is no 

consideration of waiver.” Hall brings this appeal of the Board’s decision finding him liable 

to repay the overpayment of benefits totaling $2,904.

Board decisions are upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. Blanton v.

Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 205, at 1, 575 S.W.3d 186, 187. Substantial evidence is relevant 

evidence that reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id., 575

S.W.3d at 188. 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. at 1–2, 575 S.W.3d at 188. 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 on the basis of the evidence presented. Id. at 2, 575 S.W.3d at 188. However, 
3

our function on appeal is not merely to rubber-stamp decisions arising from the Board. Id.

at 2, 575 S.W.3d at 188.

This court’s decision in Carman v. Director confirmed that, 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. Code Ann. §

11-10-532(b)(2)(A) (Supp. 2021)). Carman also holds that the repayment of Federal Pandemic 

Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits may be waived if the State determines that 

the payment of the FPUC benefits was without fault on the part of the worker and that 

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)). 

The record indicates that Hall received regular state unemployment benefits totaling 

$504 and FPUC benefits totaling $2,400 between April 4 and April 25, 2020. Because the 

Board found that the overpayment of state unemployment benefits was not due to agency 

error, substantial evidence supports its decision requiring Hall to repay the $504 in regular 

state unemployment benefits that he received between the weeks ending April 4 and April 

25, 2020.

In addition, Hall received FPUC benefits totaling $2,400 during that time. However, 

the Board failed to make any findings regarding the federal-benefit-waiver analysis outlined 

in Carman. If adequate findings of fact are not made on the issue presented, we remand to 
4

the Board for findings of fact and conclusions of law upon 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-benefit-waiver analysis, regarding 

whether payment of the $2,400 in FPUC benefits that Hall received during the relevant time 

period was without fault on his part and, if so, whether repayment would be contrary to 

equity and good conscience.

Affirmed in part; remanded in part.

VIRDEN and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Christopher Hall, pro se appellant.

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