Court Opinion

ID: 9894287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 14:03:57.816568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:35.486510
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 498
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION II
                                        No. E-22-404

 STACY BRIDGES                                 Opinion Delivered November 1, 2023

                               APPELLANT
                                               APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
                                               BOARD OF REVIEW
 V.                                            [NO. 2022-BR-00048]

 DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF                    REMANDED FOR ADDITIONAL
 WORKFORCE SERVICES                       FINDINGS OR TO SUPPLEMENT THE
                                 APPELLEE RECORD

                             CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge

       Appellant Stacy Bridges appeals from an order issued by the Arkansas Board of

Review (Board) affirming the determination of the Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) requiring

her to repay $6,096 in unemployment compensation benefits. We remand for additional

findings or to supplement the record.

       On September 29, 2021, the Division of Workforce Services (DWS) mailed Bridges

a notice of agency determination advising her that because she had been discharged from

her employment due to negligence in performing her job duties, she was disqualified from

receiving benefits as of January 8, 2021. Then, on November 4, 2021, DWS sent Bridges a

notice of non-fraud overpayment determination, notifying her that, due to her earlier

disqualification, she was obligated to repay benefits in the amount of $6,096.
       Bridges appealed both adverse determinations to the Tribunal on November 9, 2021.

On November 30, the Tribunal conducted a hearing addressing both appeals. Following the

hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the September 29 determination finding that

it was untimely1 and that the late filing was not due to circumstances beyond Bridges’s

control.2 The Tribunal affirmed the November 4 DWS determination finding that Bridges

was liable to repay $6,096 in overpayment benefits. The record before us reveals that Bridges

sought to appeal both adverse rulings from the Tribunal; yet our record only includes an

opinion from the Board addressing the Tribunal’s overpayment determination. As such, the

case is remanded to the Board to either supplement our record to include its opinion related

to Bridges’s appeal from the Paulino hearing or, if no such opinion exists, to make additional

findings regarding the timeliness of her appeal to the Tribunal.

       Remanded for additional findings or to supplement the record.

       ABRAMSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

       Stacy Bridges, pro se appellant.

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

       1
        “The claimant . . . may appeal a determination made by the agency by filing a written
notice of appeal with the Appeal Tribunal or at any office of the Division of Workforce
Services within twenty (20) calendar days after the mailing of the notice to his or her last
known address.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-524(a)(1) (Supp. 2023).

       2
        See Paulino v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 676, 599 S.W.3d 760 (1980) (due process requires
that the appellant be afforded a hearing to determine whether the late filing was due to
circumstances beyond her control).

                                              2