Opinion ID: 1630521
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the mesc correctly calculate the overpayment to jones?

Text: ¶ 18. Before the MESC will be entitled to recover any overpayment in accordance with Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-19(4), there must be findings by the MESC that a person received benefits, at a time when he was ineligible, by reason of a non-disclosure or a misrepresentation of a material fact, made by that person or another, irrespective of fraudulent intent or knowledge of the omitted or misrepresented fact. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n v. Sellers, 505 So.2d 281, 283 (Miss.1987). Any person who satisfies these elements shall in the discretion of the commission, either be liable to have such sum deducted from any future benefits payable to him under this chapter or shall be liable to repay to the commission for the unemployment compensation fund a sum equal to the amount so received by him.... Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-19(4). ¶ 19. MESC is entitled to recover what it overpaid to Jones under Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-19(4). Substantial evidence exists that Jones received benefits. He was ineligible for the amount that he received. He did not disclose his additional income as a city alderman. The non-disclosure was personally made by Jones on his weekly claims forms and, according to Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-19(4), it does not matter whether Jones's intent was fraudulent. ¶ 20. Jones argues that by requiring that the benefits be repaid, the MESC has imposed the more severe of the two penalties under Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-19(4). Apparently, Jones thinks that the MESC should have instead deducted such benefits from amounts that he was to receive in the future. Therefore, for lack of some rational and objective finding on the record, that decision was arbitrary and capricious and cannot stand. ¶ 21. The MESC states that: Generally, the Commission's policy is that where the overpayment was due to the fault of the claimant, i.e., some culpable action of non-disclosure, fraud, or misrepresentation, the Commission is entitled to full repayment of any benefits paid, such that Mr. Jones'[s] $3,800.00 overpayment is correct. In the instant case, since Mr. Jones did not testify, and since the overpayment was due to Mr. Jones'[s] reporting failure, the Commission set-up Mr. Jones'[s] file as a case of fraud. Because this matter was found by the Commission to be fraud, the Commission did not give Mr. Jones the $40.00 exemption. [Miss.Code Ann. §] 71-5-505 (1972, as amended). ¶ 22. The MESC's decision to seek full repayment was, in our opinion, arbitrary and capricious. Although Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-19(4) clearly gives the MESC the right to seek full repayment and our holding in Sellers does not require any fraudulent intent in order to do so, we conclude that Jones should be afforded the $40.00 per week exemption permitted under Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-505. Jones's case should not have been set up as a fraud case and having done so was, in our opinion, arbitrary. The policy used by the MESC to seek full repayment is apparently a self-imposed one which it uses when, and if, there is some fault of the claimant, i.e., some culpable action of non-disclosure, fraud, or misrepresentation. Its decision was based on Jones's failure to disclose an extra $198.46 per week on his weekly claims forms which was compounded by his failure to testify before the MESC's Appeals Referee. We do not share the MESC's position that Jones's failure to testify amounted to fraud. Though Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-141 states that [n]o person shall be excused from attending or testifying[,] we will not allow a presumption of fraudulent intent when an employee fails to participate. The MESC was completely justified in seeking to collect immediately the benefits paid although it should be less the $627.20 in exemptions.