Court Opinion

ID: 9948059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 15:02:08.53183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:05.350719
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 173
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION III
                                        No. E-22-653

                                                Opinion Delivered March 6, 2024

RICKY LEE WINKLES, JR.                    APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
                                APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW

V.
                                                [NO. 2022-BR-01365]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE
SERVICES
                         APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED

                                  MIKE MURPHY, Judge

        Ricky Winkles appeals the Board of Review’s (Board’s) dismissal of his

 unemployment-benefits appeal on the basis that his untimely appeal to the Board was not

 due to circumstances beyond his control. We reverse and remand.

        The Board found that Winkles had until May 2, 2022, to file his appeal, but the

 appeal was not filed until May 31. Pursuant to Paulino v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 676, 559 S.W.2d

 760 (Ark. App. 1980), Winkles was entitled to a hearing to determine if the late filing was

 due to circumstances beyond his control. The Board found that Winkles was afforded a

 hearing on October 26, 2022, but the record contains some discrepancies that must be

 addressed.

        First, the record contains a notice of postponement that was mailed by the Board to

 Winkles on October 27, 2022, stating that his October 26 hearing was rescheduled to
Thursday, November 17. (Winkles had previously indicated that he was available to

participate in the October 26 hearing.) That same day a notice of telephone hearing was also

mailed to Winkles confirming the November 17 date and instructing that should Winkles

need to continue or postpone the hearing, he must make the request in writing to the Board

of Review before the date of the hearing. On October 31, the Board received a letter from

Winkles requesting that the hearing be rescheduled to accommodate his work schedule.

There is nothing in the record indicating that the Board acknowledged his request. The

Board called Winkles on November 17,Winkles did not answer, and the Board found that

Winkles did not establish that the untimely filing was due to circumstances beyond

Winkles’s control.

       Due to the inconsistency between the Board’s finding that a hearing was conducted

October 26 and the notice in the record rescheduling the same hearing to November,

coupled with Winkles’s written request mailed before the November date asking to

reschedule, we reverse and remand to the Board with the instruction that Winkles is afforded

the opportunity to be heard at a Paulino hearing.

       Reversed and remanded.

       HARRISON, C.J., and WOOD, J., agree.

       Ricky Lee Winkles, Jr., pro se appellant.

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

                                                   2