Court Opinion

ID: 9369242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 15:02:08.578876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.539554
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 47
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION III
                                         No. E-22-121

 AMBER HELMS                                     Opinion Delivered February   8, 2023
                                APPELLANT
                                                 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
                                                 BOARD OF REVIEW
 V.                                              [NO. 2021-BR-01782]

 DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
 WORKFORCE SERVICES
                      APPELLEE AFFIRMED

                        STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

       Amber Helms appeals the Board of Review’s (Board’s) decision affirming the Appeal

Tribunal decision that she was liable for repayment of unemployment benefits she received

to which she was not entitled under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-532(a) (Supp.

2021) because she intentionally misrepresented material facts known to her to be false or

knowingly failed to disclose material facts. On appeal, Helms argues that there is insufficient

evidence to support the Board’s decision. We affirm.

       On appeal of an unemployment-compensation case, we review the evidence and all

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

findings. Jones v. Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 341, 581 S.W.3d 516. Those findings are conclusive

if supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion. Id. This court’s appellate review is limited to determining
whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision on the basis of the evidence before it,

even if there is evidence on which it might have reached a different decision. Higgins v. Dir.,

2016 Ark. App. 449, 503 S.W.3d 833. This court may not substitute its findings for the

Board’s findings, even though it might have reached a different conclusion had it made an

original determination on the same evidence. Id.

       The Division of Workforce Services found Helms was not entitled to benefits because

she had voluntarily quit her job without good cause; in a separate decision, the Division of

Workforce Services determined Helms had willfully made false statements or

misrepresentations of a material fact or had failed to disclose a material fact when filing a

continued claim, resulting in a disqualification from receiving benefits. Helms timely

appealed these adverse determinations to the Appeal Tribunal, and a telephone hearing was

held for both appeals on October 9, 2020. Two separate decisions resulting from the

October 9 hearing were mailed to Helms on October 10. In appeal No. 2020-AT-08250, the

hearing officer affirmed the finding that Helms voluntarily quit her job on May 11, 2020,

when she declined an offer of work, stating, “I could draw more on UI.” In appeal No. 2020-

AT-08252, the hearing officer affirmed the finding that Helms had willfully made a false

statement or misrepresentation of a material fact or had willfully failed to disclose a material

fact when filing a continued claim by failing to report earnings paid to her and by failing to

report that she had voluntarily separated from her job. Helms did not appeal these Appeal

Tribunal decisions to the Board.

                                               2
       On October 26, 2020, the Division of Workforce Services issued a notice of fraud

overpayment determination that Helms was liable to repay $6547 in benefits as well as an

additional $1473.50 fraud penalty, for a total of $8020.50, because she received benefits to

which she was not entitled as a result of intentionally misrepresenting material facts knowing

them to be false or knowingly failing to disclose material facts. Helms timely appealed this

overpayment decision to the Appeal Tribunal; after a telephone hearing on the issue, the

Appeal Tribunal affirmed Helms’s liability for repayment in appeal No. 2020-AT-17558.

Helms appealed the Appeal Tribunal’s decision to the Board, which affirmed her liability to

repay the benefits she received as a result of fraud overpayment.

       Helms filed a timely notice of appeal to this court from the Board’s determination

that she is liable to repay $6547 in benefits as well as an additional $1473.50 fraud penalty,

for a total of $8020.50, because she received benefits to which she was not entitled as a result

of intentionally misrepresenting material facts knowing them to be false or knowingly failing

to disclose material facts. In the present appeal, Helms admits that she had voluntarily quit

her work, but she argues that there was no substantial evidence to support the conclusion

that she received benefits to which she was not entitled that would rise to the level of fraud

that would justify requiring her to repay unemployment benefits to which she claims she was

entitled. This argument is an attempt to relitigate the issues that were determined in appeal

Nos. 2020-AT-08250 and 2020-AT-08252. However, those rulings were not appealed;

therefore, those decisions remain in force.

                                               3
       The sole issue before us in the present appeal is whether Helms is liable for repayment

of benefits; the fraud determination is not properly before us. Hunt v. Dir., 57 Ark. App.

152, 942 S.W.2d 873 (1997). Helms makes no argument on appeal that the amount of

repayment is incorrect; she argues only that she did not commit fraud. Under Arkansas

Code Annotated section 11-10-519(a)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2021), a person who is disqualified

from receiving benefits for willfully making a false statement or misrepresentation of a

material fact or willfully failing to disclose a material fact “shall be liable for repayment of

any benefits determined to have been collected fraudulently, as well as any other penalties,

interest, and costs assessed as a result of the fraudulent activity.” Because a determination

of willful misrepresentation of material facts was made against Helms and not appealed, that

determination remains in effect, and Helms is liable for repayment of benefits she received

as a result of that misrepresentation.

       Affirmed.

       KLAPPENBACH and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

       J. Michael Helms, for appellant.

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

                                               4