Court Opinion

ID: 9948119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 16:04:01.402665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:09.823307
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 174
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION III
                                        No. E-22-665

                                                Opinion Delivered March 6, 2024

 SHERRY CANADY                            APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
                                APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW

 V.
                                                [NO. 2022-BR-01655]
 DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
 WORKFORCE SERVICES
                                  APPELLEE REMANDED

                                 MIKE MURPHY, Judge

       Sherry Canady appeals an adverse ruling of the Board of Review (Board) affirming an

Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) finding that she is liable to repay $14,272 in overpaid

unemployment benefits. We remand.

       On October 25, 2021, the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services (DWS) issued

Canady a notice of nonfraud overpayment finding that she had received benefits to which

she was not entitled for reasons other than fraud. Canady appealed this determination to

the Tribunal, and the Tribunal affirmed. Canady then appealed to the Board, which affirmed

the Tribunal’s decision, finding that the overpayment of benefits was not due to agency error.

More specifically, the Board found that Canady had received benefits to which she was not

entitled because she was discharged from her last work for a disqualifying reason.
       Canady brings this appeal of the Board’s decision finding her liable to repay the

overpayment of benefits totaling $14,272.

       Board decisions are upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. Blanton v.

Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 205, at 1, 575 S.W.3d 186, 187. Substantial evidence is such relevant

evidence that reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id., 575

S.W.3d at 188. In appeals of unemployment-compensation cases, we view the evidence and

all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board’s

findings. Id. at 1–2, 575 S.W.3d at 188. Even if there is evidence that could support a

different decision, our review is limited to whether the Board could have reasonably reached

its decision on the basis of the evidence presented. Id. at 2, 575 S.W.3d at 188.

       This court’s decision in Carman v. Director confirmed that, for purposes of the

overpayment of state unemployment benefits, the repayment may be waived “if the director

finds that the overpayment was received as a direct result of an error by the Division of

Workforce Services and that its recovery would be against equity and good conscience.”

Carman v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 51, at 7, 660 S.W.3d 852, 857 (quoting Ark. Code Ann. §

11-10-532(b)(2)(A) (Supp. 2021)). Carman also holds that the repayment of Federal Pandemic

Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits may be waived if the State determines that

the payment of the FPUC benefits was without fault on the part of the worker and that

repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience. Id. at 8, 660 S.W.3d at 857

(citing 15 U.S.C. § 9023(f)(2)).

                                              2
      The record indicates that Canady received regular state unemployment benefits,

extended state unemployment benefits, and FPUC. Neither the Board’s nor the Tribunal’s

opinions made findings regarding how much of the total overpayment is attributable to each

program.

      Accordingly, on remand, the Board is tasked with making findings sufficient to

establish what amount of the overpayment is attributable to state unemployment benefits

and what amount is attributable to FPUC. Regarding the FPUC, the Board is further tasked

with making findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether the payments were

made without the fault of the claimant and whether repayment would be contrary to equity

and good conscience. Hancock v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 597, at 3.

      Remanded.

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

      Sherry Canady, pro se appellant.

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

                                            3