Court Opinion

ID: 9954266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 20:16:56.425219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:59.255124
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
                                                                              FILED
                                                                          March 25, 2024
DONALD B. HUFFMAN
                                                                           C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
Claimant Below, Petitioner                                              INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                               OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 23-ICA-111        (WorkForce Bd. of Review Case No. R-2021-4873)

WORKFORCE WEST VIRGINIA,
Respondent Below, Respondent

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Donald B. Huffman appeals the WorkForce West Virginia Board of
Review’s (“Board”) January 24, 2023, decision. Respondent Workforce West Virginia
(“Workforce”) filed a response.1 Mr. Huffman did not file a reply. The issue on appeal is
whether the Board erred in affirming the decision of the Workforce administrative law
judge (“ALJ”), which found that Mr. Huffman was ineligible for Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance (“PUA”) benefits and that he must reimburse WorkForce for the PUA benefits
received.

        This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds that there is some error in the Board’s decision. This case
satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure for reversal in a memorandum decision. For the reasons set forth below, the
decision of the Board is affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.

       Mr. Huffman’s last reported date of employment was January 8, 2019, when he was
laid off by his employer, MDM Solutions, LLC. After this date, Mr. Huffman remained
unemployed. Mr. Huffman was looking for work both before and during the pandemic.

      Mr. Huffman filed an unemployment compensation claim seeking PUA benefits on
May 11, 2020. When Mr. Huffman filed his application for benefits, he accurately
responded “no” when asked whether he had worked between January 1, 2019, and
December 31, 2019. Nevertheless, he indicated on this application that he was unemployed
because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of Mr. Huffman’s application, he was
approved for PUA benefits in the amount of $158.00 per week for the weeks between

       1
           Mr. Huffman is self-represented. WorkForce is represented by Kimberly A. Levy,
Esq.

                                             1
February 8, 2020, and September 19, 2020. Mr. Huffman also received seventeen weeks
of Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (“FPUC”) funds for the weeks ending
April 4, 2020, to July 25, 2020. In addition, Mr. Huffman received $400.00 per week in
Lost Wages Assistance for the weeks ending August 1, 2020, to September 5, 2020.

       Over a year after he stopped receiving benefits, Mr. Huffman’s claim was reviewed
by WorkForce. On September 24, 2021, a WorkForce deputy’s decision held that Mr.
Huffman was disqualified from the receipt of PUA benefits, as he had been unemployed
since January 8, 2019, and his unemployment was not a result of the pandemic. The deputy
held that Mr. Huffman was disqualified from receiving PUA benefits from February 2,
2020, to June 19, 2021. Further, the deputy found that Mr. Huffman did not provide
documentation of how he was directly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, or proof of
his identification and residency. WorkForce also sent Mr. Huffman several letters, dated
September 24, 2021, which indicated that he was overpaid benefits in the amounts of
$10,200.00, $5,812.00, $5,214.00, and $2,400.00, and that these balances totaling $23, 626
needed to be repaid.

       Mr. Huffman appealed the September 24, 2021, deputy’s decision to the Board. A
hearing was held before the Board’s ALJ on September 27, 2022. Both Mr. Huffman and
a witness for WorkForce testified at the hearing. Mr. Huffman asserted that he had not been
employed since January 2019, when he worked for MDM Solutions, LLC doing land work.
Mr. Huffman testified that he had previously received unemployment benefits in
Pennsylvania until October 2019, prior to applying for benefits in West Virginia. Further,
he stated that he had provided truthful and accurate responses on his application for
benefits. Mr. Huffman could not recall whether he had applied for PUA benefits in West
Virginia, and stated that he did not receive the $5,214.00, $5,812.00, or $10,200.00 in
benefits as indicated by WorkForce’s overpayment notices. Mr. Huffman did not deny that
he received the $2,400.00 in PUA benefits.

       The ALJ held that Mr. Huffman was ineligible for PUA benefits, as he had not
worked since January 2019 and was thus not a covered individual under the CARES Act.2
As to the overpayments, the ALJ further found that Mr. Huffman had not provided any
evidence other than his testimony that he did not receive the benefits awarded to him. The
ALJ determined that Mr. Huffman owed four overpayments of $10,200, $5,812, $5,214,
and $2,400. Based on the foregoing, the ALJ affirmed the deputy’s decision.

         Mr. Huffman appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Board on November 30, 2022. The
Board affirmed the decision of the ALJ in its entirety in a decision dated January 24, 2023.
It is from this decision that Mr. Huffman now appeals.

       2
       The CARES Act is congressional legislation passed during the COVID-19
pandemic, which included appropriations for states to fund PUA benefits.

                                             2
       In appeals from the Board, our standard of review is as follows:

       The findings of fact of the Board of Review of [WorkForce West Virginia]
       are entitled to substantial deference unless a reviewing court believes the
       findings are clearly wrong. If the question on review is one purely of law, no
       deference is given and the standard of judicial review by the court is de novo.

Taylor v. Workforce W. Va., 249 W. Va. 381, __, 895 S.E.2d 236, 241 (Ct. App. 2023)
(alteration in original) (quoting Syl. Pt. 3, Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W.Va. 561, 563, 453
S.E.2d 395, 397 (1994)).

       On appeal, Mr. Huffman asserts a single assignment of error and argues that he did
not receive the entirety of the unemployment benefits that WorkForce indicated. He also
argues that the funds that he received would only amount to an overpayment of $2,400.

        In response, WorkForce argues that Mr. Huffman was ineligible for unemployment
benefits because he was unemployed from January 18, 2019, prior to the start of the
pandemic, and was therefore not a “covered individual” under the CARES Act. WorkForce
asserts that Mr. Huffman received $158 per week from the weeks ending February 8, 2020,
to September 19, 2020, as well as $600 per week in PUA funds from the weeks ending
April 4, 2020, to July 25, 2020, which were deposited onto a debit card that was given to
Mr. Huffman and should be collected as overpayments.

        Turning to the issue of Mr. Huffman’s initial eligibility for PUA benefits, the record
establishes that Mr. Huffman was separated from work on January 8, 2019, prior to the
start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, Mr. Huffman did not have any other job offers
that were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act § 2102, 15 U.S.C. §
9021(a)(3) provides for payment of PUA benefits to “covered individuals,” who must self-
certify that they were able and available to work, except that the individual was
unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable to work due to their place of employment
being closed by COVID-19. An individual can also be a “covered individual” under the
CARES Act if the individual was scheduled to begin work and does not have a job or was
unable to reach a job as a direct result of COVID-19. See id. Thus, we find that the Board
did not err in affirming the ALJ’s finding that Mr. Huffman was ineligible for PUA benefits
because he was not a covered individual under the CARES Act.

       Next, we turn to Mr. Huffman’s assignment of error in which he argues that he did
not receive all of the funds that WorkForce determined he owes as overpayments. Upon
our review of the record, it appears that there are some inconsistencies as to whether Mr.
Huffman received the funds allocated to him by WorkForce. The ALJ found that
WorkForce had no record as to whether any of the funds put onto the debit card had been
spent, and Mr. Huffman denied receiving the funds. Further, the ALJ found that unused
funds put on a debit card that was not activated were sent out in check form if the funds

                                              3
were not used. However, based upon the testimony of the parties, no checks were sent to
or received by Mr. Huffman. WorkForce did not provide further information as to whether
any direct deposits were made to Mr. Huffman, who argues that he only received $2,400
in benefits, while WorkForce asserts that he owes several thousand dollars more in
overpayments. Based upon the conflicting evidence in the record, we find that there was
insufficient evidence to make a determination as to the exact amount of PUA benefits paid
to Mr. Huffman.

       Regarding the issue of the alleged overpayments, this Court notes that the Board did
not consider Governor Justice’s Executive Order Nos. 4-20, which established certain PUA
benefits due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and 11-21, which precludes WorkForce from
collecting PUA overpayments in the absence of fraud. Executive Order 11-21 states, in
part:

       The provisions of Chapter 21A, Article 10, Section 21 of the Code of West
       Virginia requiring the commissioner of WorkForce West Virginia to collect
       non-fraudulent unemployment overpayments shall be suspended, provided:
       (a) The overpayment was received without fault on the part of the claimant;
       and (b) Recoupment of the overpayment would be against equity and good
       conscience.

       Regardless of Mr. Huffman’s initial eligibility for PUA benefits, based on the
Board’s decision it does not appear that it considered Executive Order 11-21 in its analysis
as to whether he should be required to repay the PUA benefits.3 Thus, we find that the
Board erred in failing to consider Governor Justice’s Executive Orders.

       Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s finding that Mr. Huffman was initially
ineligible for benefits because he was not separated from employment due to the pandemic.
However, we reverse and remand for further consideration as to whether Governor
Justice’s Executive Orders preclude WorkForce from collecting the alleged overpayments
of PUA benefits, and to the extent necessary, further factual findings as to the sum of the
PUA benefits that Mr. Huffman actually received.

                                        Affirmed in part, Reversed, in part and Remanded.

       3
         We have remanded similar matters involving overpayments for consideration of
Executive Order 11-21. See Workforce W. Va. v. Jonese, No. 22-ICA-131, 2023 WL
5695915, at *4 (W. Va. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2023) (memorandum decision); Workforce W.
Va. v. Kirker, No. 22-ICA-125, 2023 WL 5696097, at *4 (W. Va. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2023)
(memorandum decision); Fields v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., No. 22-ICA-266, 2023 WL
6290652, at *3 (W. Va. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2023) (memorandum decision).

                                             4
ISSUED: March 25, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear

                              5