NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STEVEN MORRILL, Appellant,

v.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, an Agency, 

Appellee.

No. 1 CA-UB 21-0096

Appeal from the A.D.E.S. Appeals Board

No. U-1694799-001-B

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES

Steven Morrill, Surprise

Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Thomas Jose 

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 5-10-2022
MORRILL v. ADES

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 In this case, we consider Appellant Steven Morrill’s eligibility 

for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Act (PUA) benefits under the 

federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 

15 U.S.C. § 9021, as administered by Appellee Arizona Department of 

Economic Security (ADES). An ADES administrative law judge (ALJ) and 

the ADES Appeals Board found that Morrill was not eligible for PUA 

benefits. Because the record supports the Appeals Board’s conclusion that 

Morrill was not unemployed as a direct result of COVID-19, we affirm the 

decision.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The relevant and material facts are undisputed. Morrill 

worked for Bolt Security beginning in October 2016. In September 2019, he 

was injured in a car accident and could not work because of his injuries.

Bolt Security later discharged him from employment. Morrill did not obtain 

other employment.

¶3 In April 2020, Morrill applied for PUA benefits claiming that 

he was unemployed as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic and that 

his employer had reduced his hours because of COVID-19. He also stated 

that he could not go to work because of COVID-19. He acknowledged in his 

application that Bolt Security had discharged him in September 2019 for 

“absenteeism.” He also declared that he had not quit a job based on COVID19. He explained that he had not been laid off due to lack of work after a 

business closure caused by COVID-19, and that his failure to return to work 

was not a result of the business closure because of COVID-19. He began 

receiving PUA benefits and confirming his eligibility weekly.

¶4 According to Morrill, Bolt Security was willing to rehire him

in June or July 2020, but he declined to return to work because he was afraid

of contracting COVID-19. In July 2020, he contracted COVID-19 and was ill 

for several weeks. In December 2020, ADES issued a Disqualifying 
MORRILL v. ADES

Decision of the Court

3

Determination Letter stating that, after reviewing his application, Morrill 

was not qualified for PUA because his employer had not reduced his hours 

because of COVID-19 as he had claimed in his application, rather he had 

been discharged by Bolt Security in 2019, before the pandemic. Thus, ADES 

concluded Morrill’s unemployment was not a direct result of the pandemic.

¶5 Morrill requested a hearing before an ALJ. The ALJ took 

Morrill’s testimony and found that he was not qualified for PUA because 

his employment with Bolt ended before the pandemic began and that his 

“subsequent reluctance to seek employment” was “due to a general fear of 

contracti[ng] [COVID-19] . . . not [due] to any of the specific [circumstances 

listed in the PUA statute].” Morrill appealed to the Appeals Board and 

provided test results from July and August 2020, ostensibly showing the 

presence of COVID-19 in his body. The Appeals Board concluded that 

Morrill had not been diagnosed with COVID-19 by “interpret[ing]” the test 

results as negative.

¶6 Morrill applied for review of the Appeals Board decision, and 

we granted his application under A.R.S. § 41-1993. We requested briefing 

on the issues of whether the Appeals Board’s interpretation of Morrill’s test 

results was supported and, if the test results did show that Morrill was 

positive for COVID-19, whether a remand was necessary to determine his 

eligibility for PUA benefits. 

DISCUSSION

¶7 In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, 

Congress passed, and the President signed, the CARES Act of 2020 (15 

U.S.C. § 9001-9141), which includes a section for PUA benefits (15 U.S.C. 

§ 9021 (2020)).1 The federal government provided funds to be administered 

by state unemployment benefits agencies. PUA was a temporary program 

designed to provide limited benefits to those who did not qualify for 

regular unemployment benefits or who had exhausted all other benefits 

available. 15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(A)(i), (c)(2).

¶8 The PUA was intended to mitigate the economic effects of the 

pandemic. See Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Act, S. 3497, 116th 

Cong. (2020).2 As relevant here, PUA eligibility is based on two factors: (1) 

1 Throughout this appeal, we refer to the version of the statute in effect 

when Morrill filed for unemployment benefits. 

2 Senate Bill 3497 was not enacted, but its provisions were 

incorporated into H.R. 748 (CARES Act).
MORRILL v. ADES

Decision of the Court

4

ineligibility for regular unemployment benefits (including exhaustion of 

regular benefits) and (2) that “the individual is unemployed, partially 

unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work because” of one of the eleven

COVID-19 related circumstances listed:

a—the applicant has been diagnosed with COVID-19 or is 

experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and is seeking a medical 

diagnosis;

b—a household member has been diagnosed with COVID-19;

c—the applicant is providing care for a family member or a 

household member who has been diagnosed with COVID-19;

d—a child or other household member for whom the 

applicant has primary caregiving responsibility for is unable 

to attend school or another facility as a direct result of the 

COVID-19 public health emergency and the care provided at 

school or the facility is needed for the applicant to work;

e—the applicant cannot go to a place of work because a 

quarantine has been imposed as a direct result of the COVID19 public health emergency;

f—the applicant cannot go to a place of work because a health 

care provider has advised the applicant to self-quarantine due 

to concerns related to COVID-19;

g—the applicant was slated to start a job but cannot or is 

unable to reach the job as a direct result of the COVID-19 

public health emergency;

h—the applicant has become the breadwinner or major

support for the household because the head of the household 

has died as a direct result of COVID-19;

i—the applicant has to quit a job as a direct result of COVID19;

j—the applicant’s place of work closed as a direct result of the 

COVID-19 public health emergency;

k—the applicant satisfies other criteria as established by the 

Secretary.
MORRILL v. ADES

Decision of the Court

5

§ 9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(aa)-(kk). In sum, as relevant to Morrill’s application, 

eligibility for PUA benefits is limited to those who lose a job or cannot begin 

a confirmed job as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

¶9 Our review of the record confirms Morrill’s unemployment

was caused by his car accident and the resulting injuries, and not by the 

pandemic. He became unemployed in September 2019 for a reason 

unrelated to COVID-19, as defined by § 9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I). His former 

employer offered Morrill his job back, but Morrill turned down that job

based on his fear of contracting COVID-19.

¶10 Nor need we address whether the record supported the 

Appeals Board’s “interpretation” of Morrill’s COVID-19 tests from July and 

August 2020. For purposes of this appeal, we accept Morrill’s claim that he 

tested positive for COVID-19 in July or August 2020. Even so, those positive 

tests are not material to his eligibility for PUA benefits. Morrill had been 

unemployed since September 2019. He declined to return to his previous 

employment in June or July 2020. Morrill applied for unemployment 

benefits in April 2020, well before he contracted COVID-19. That he tested

positive for COVID-19 subsequently in July and August 2020 did not affect

his unemployment status. His positive COVID-19 tests did not preclude his 

re-employment, nor did they retroactively render him eligible for PUA 

benefits. Morrill did not return to work when given the opportunity the 

month preceding his infection. And he presented no evidence that he lost 

employment, or a confirmed job offer because he contracted COVID-19. 

Without this evidence, and because his unemployment predates him 

contracting COVID-19, Morrill is not eligible for PUA benefits.

¶11 For these reasons, when Morrill sought and began receiving 

PUA benefits, he was not unemployed nor unable to work “because of”

COVID-19. Given these facts, COVID-19 was not the cause of Morrill being 

unemployed and therefore he is not a person covered under the PUA 

benefit scheme.
MORRILL v. ADES

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶12 Because Morrill was not eligible for PUA benefits, we affirm 

the Appeals Board’s denial of his administrative appeal.