Court Opinion

ID: 9909395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 15:02:07.577336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:13.463738
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 601
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                         DIVISION II
                                         No. E-22-502

                                                  Opinion Delivered December 13, 2023

LISA LANGSTON
                                 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
                                           BOARD OF REVIEW
V.
                                                  [NO. 2022-BR-00582]
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES                           AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN
                                    APPELLEE 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
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. 2 Substantial evidence

       1
           Keener 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.

                                                2
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.

       4
           Taunton 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.

                                                3
       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.

                                              4