Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 601

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. E-22-502

LISA LANGSTON

APPELLANT

V.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

WORKFORCE SERVICES

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered December 13, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS 

BOARD OF REVIEW

[NO. 2022-BR-00582]

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN 

PART FOR FURTHER FINDINGS

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant, Lisa Langston (Langston), appeals from an order issued on August 11, 

2022, by the Arkansas Board of Review (the Board) requiring her to repay $1,860 in overpaid 

unemployment benefits in favor of appellee, Division of Workforce Services (DWS). We 

affirm in part and remand for further findings in part for the reasons our court has previously 

addressed in Carman v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 51, 660 S.W.3d 852.

According to the record, Langston was issued a “Notice of Non-Fraud Overpayment 

Determination” on December 1, 2021, finding that she was liable to repay $1,860 in benefits 

pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-532(b) (Supp.2023). In response, Langston filed a timely 

appeal of this determination to the Appeal Tribunal, which conducted a hearing on February 

7, 2022, and affirmed DWS’s determination in appeal No. 2021-AT-23965. Langston timely 
2

appealed to the Board from the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. The Board in appeal No. 

2022-BR-00582 affirmed the Tribunal’s decision, finding that

[a] determination was issued by the Division on September 20, 2021, allowing the 

claimant benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a) on finding that the claimant 

was discharged from last work for reasons other than misconduct connected with 

the work. The Tribunal then issued a decision on October 22, 2021 which reversed 

and modified the Division's determination and denied benefits under Ark. Code 

Ann. § 11-10-514(b) on finding that the claimant was discharged from last work for 

misconduct in connection with the work due to dishonesty. The Tribunal's decision 

resulted in the overpayment. The claimant filed an untimely appeal of that decision 

to the Board, and the Board dismissed the appeal in Appeal No. 2022-BR-00581 on 

finding that the untimely filing of the appeal was not due to circumstances beyond 

the claimant's control. The determination is still in effect, and as such the 

overpayment is still in effect. The overpayment was not a direct result of an error by 

the Division and as such an equity and good conscience review is not warranted. 

Therefore, the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in Appeal No. 2022-AT-23965 is 

affirmed on finding that the claimant is liable for repayment of benefits.

We agree with the Board's findings of fact and conclusion of law; however, we remand 

in part because DWS failed to make the required findings to complete the federal waiver 

analysis. In appeals of unemployment-compensation cases, we review the evidence and all 

reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board’s 

findings.1 The findings of fact made by the Board are conclusive if supported by substantial 

evidence; even when there is evidence upon which the Board might have reached a different 

decision, the scope of judicial review is limited to a determination of whether the Board 

could have reasonably reached its decision on the evidence presented.2Substantial evidence 

 

1Keener v. Dir., 2021 Ark. App. 88, at 1, 618 S.W.3d 446, 448.

2

Id. at 1–2, 618 S.W.3d at 448.
3

is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 

Issues of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be afforded their testimony are matters 

for the Board to determine. While our role in these cases is limited, we are not here to merely 

ratify the decision of the Board. Instead, our role is to ensure that the standard of review has 

been met.3

Here, the Board found that the $1,860 benefit overpayment was due to the Tribunal’s 

determination, not based on an agency error. Since the error was not a direct result of DWS 

error, we agree that an equity-and-good-conscience review is not warranted; and we find that 

substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings as to the state benefits. However, the 

“Review Claims Transactions” shows that a portion of benefits were state benefits, and a 

portion were Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits. When a 

claimant receives both state- and federal unemployment benefits—and the state attempts to 

recover nonfraud overpayments—the Board must conduct a different waiver analysis for the 

state unemployment benefits received and the federal unemployment benefits received.4 The 

state benefit overpayment must have been caused as a direct result of the DWS’s error, and

it must be against the principles of equity and good conscience to require repayment.5

 

3

Id.

4Taunton v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 507, at 2–3.

5 Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-532(b)(2); see also King v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 182, at 3, 

664 S.W.3d 439, 442.
4

Neither the Appeal Tribunal nor the Board performed the required federal waiver 

analysis to determine whether the FPUC benefits must be repaid. Consequently, as to the 

federal waiver analysis, we remand for findings on this question on the basis of this court’s 

decisions in Rush v. Director, 2023 Ark. App. 276, 668 S.W.3d 520, and Carman v. Director, 

2023 Ark. App. 51, 660 S.W.3d 852. We also request that DWS make a distinction in the 

classification of which portion of the funds is “state” and which portion is “federal” benefits 

to be repaid. 

Affirmed in part; remanded in part for further findings.

VIRDEN and GRUBER, JJ., agree.

Lisa Langston, pro se appellant.

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