Court Opinion

ID: 9942497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 15:02:26.183419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:13.854576
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 125
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION II
                                        No. E-22-625

MYTEAR BERKHALTER                              Opinion Delivered February 21, 2024

                                               APPEAL FROM THE
                             APPELLANT         ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW
                                               [NO. 2022-BR-01225]
V.

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES;
AND ARKANSAS BUILDING
SERVICES, LLC
                                               REMANDED TO SETTLE AND
                              APPELLEES        SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

                        STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

       Mytear Berkhalter appeals the Board of Review’s (Board’s) dismissal of her

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

due to circumstances beyond her control. Because our record does not contain a transcript

of the October 19, 2022, hearing conducted by the Board on the timeliness issue, we remand

to settle and supplement the record to include a transcript of that hearing.

       On March 11, 2021, the Division of Workforce Services issued a determination

denying Berkhalter benefits on the finding that she had willfully made a false statement or

misrepresentation of a material fact while filing an initial claim. Berkhalter filed an untimely

appeal of that determination to the Appeal Tribunal, which, pursuant to Paulino v. Daniels,

269 Ark. 676, 559 S.W.2d 760 (Ark. App. 1980), held a hearing on April 11, 2022, to
determine if the untimely filing of the appeal was due to circumstances beyond Berkhalter’s

control.1 The Appeal Tribunal issued a decision finding that the late filing was not due to

circumstances beyond Berkhalter’s control and dismissed the appeal. Berkhalter then filed

an untimely appeal to the Board from the Appeal Tribunal decision.

       On October 19, 2022, the Board held a second Paulino hearing to determine if

Berkhalter’s untimely filing of her appeal to the Board was due to circumstances beyond her

control. As a result of that hearing, the Board concluded Berkhalter had not shown that the

late filing of her appeal was due to circumstances beyond her control. However, because our

record does not contain a transcript of the October 19 Paulino hearing, we cannot reach the

merits of Berkhalter’s claim at this time. We remand this case to the Board to settle and

supplement the record. See Robinson v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 585.

       Remanded to settle and supplement the record.

       GLADWIN and GRUBER, JJ., agree.

       Mytear Berkhalter, pro se appellant.

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

       1
       According to the statements of the hearing officer, the Paulino hearing before the
Appeal Tribunal involved two cases—2022-AT-02416 (the subject of this appeal) and 2022-
AT-02417.

                                              2