Court Opinion

ID: 9908360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 16:02:56.080021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:08.934265
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 574
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                         DIVISION I
                                         No. E-22-298

                                                 Opinion Delivered December 6, 2023

DELLMARIE DAWSON
                                 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
                                           BOARD OF REVIEW
V.
                                                 [NO. 2021-BR-05253]
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES                               DISMISSED
                                   APPELLEE

                              WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

        This case returns to us with corrected errors. Here, appellant, Dellmarie Dawson

 (Dawson), was issued a notice of agency determination on September 20, 2021, denying her

 benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-515 on finding that she refused without good cause

 to accept an offer of suitable work. In response, Dawson filed a timely appeal of this

 determination to the Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal), which conducted a hearing on October

 18, 2021, and issued a decision in Appeal No. 2021-AT-20558 that affirmed the Division

 determination. Later, Dawson filed an untimely appeal to the Board of Review (Board) from

 the decision of the Tribunal. As a result, Dawson was afforded a timeliness hearing before

 the Board by telephone on May 3, 2022, to establish whether the late filing of the appeal was

 the result of circumstances beyond her control. Thereafter, the Board issued a decision in

 Appeal No. 2021-BR-05253, allowing Dawson’s appeal on finding that it was timely filed
and affirming the Tribunal decision. Dawson appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

This court remanded the case back to the Board for additional findings and conclusions of

law.

       Now, as this case returns, the Board has reversed the Tribunal’s decision finding that

Dawson refused to accept an offer of suitable work. Consequently, Dawson is allowed to

receive benefits in compliance with the law. Therefore, it appears that the appeal before us

is moot. As such, we dismiss.

       Dismissed.

       WOOD and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

       Dellmarie Dawson, pro se appellant.

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

                                             2