Court Opinion

ID: 9905370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 15:03:49.761859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:24.749183
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 547
                  ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION I
                                       No. E-22-484

 TIJUANA WEBSTER                               Opinion Delivered November 29, 2023

                              APPELLANT
                                               APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
                                               BOARD OF REVIEW
 V.                                            [NO. 2022-BR-00481]

 DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF                         AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN
 WORKFORCE SERVICES                            PART
                                 APPELLEE

                            CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge

      Tijuana Webster appeals to this court, challenging the Arkansas Board of Review’s

(“Board’s”) decision requiring her to repay unemployment-compensation benefits she

previously received in the amount of $2,205. We affirm in part and remand in part.

                            I. Background and Procedural History

      The record indicates that Webester received $107 in weekly state unemployment

benefits for the weeks ending October 3, 2020, through January 9, 2021, for a total of

$1,605. In addition, Webster received $300 in weekly Federal Pandemic Unemployment

Compensation (“FPUC”) for the weeks ending January 2 through January 9, 2021, for a total

of $600. The record also contains a notice of agency determination dated December 2, 2021,

that disqualified Webster from receiving benefits beginning September 29, 2020. The

decision disqualifying Webster from unemployment benefits was ultimately upheld by the
Board in a separate appeal and affirmed by this court in Webster v. Director, E-22-483 (Ark.

App. Nov. 15, 2023) (aff’d without written opinion). That underlying disqualification is

therefore not before us. In this separate appeal, we address only the issue of repayment.

                                    II. Standard of Review

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

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

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

However, our function on appeal is not merely to rubber-stamp decisions arising from the

Board. Thomas v. Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 468, 587 S.W.3d 612; Wilson v. Dir., 2017 Ark. App.

171, 517 S.W.3d 427.

                                         III. Analysis

       This court’s recent decision in Carman v. Director, 2023 Ark. App. 51, 660 S.W.3d

852, confirmed that, for purposes of 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, 2023 Ark. App. 51, at 7, 660 S.W.3d at 857 (quoting

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-532(b)(2)(A) (Supp. 2021)). Carman also holds that FPUC

                                              2
repayment may be waived if the State determines that the payment of the FPUC was without

fault on the part of the individual and that such 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)).

       In the present case, the Board affirmed and adopted the decision of the Tribunal

which found that the overpayment of benefits was a result of a final disqualifying Board

determination—that Webster “voluntarily left last work without good cause connected to the

work”—and not due to an error by the Division. As stated above, to avoid repayment of state

unemployment benefits, the overpayment must have been caused as a direct result of the

Division’s error, and it must be against principles of equity and good conscience to require

repayment. See Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-532(b)(2). Because Webster failed to satisfy the first

prong of her state unemployment-waiver analysis that overpayment was received as a result

of an error by the Division of Workforce Services, we affirm the decision requiring Webster

to repay $1,605 in state unemployment benefits.

       However, Webster also received FPUC benefits. For the repayment of federal benefits

to be waived, the Division must find that the federal payments were made without fault on

the part of the claimant and that repayment would be contrary to equity and good

conscience. See 15 U.S.C. § 9023(f)(2). Here, neither the Tribunal nor the Board performed

the required federal-waiver analysis to determine whether the $600 in FPUC must be repaid,

and no findings were made with regard to that analysis. Whether sufficient findings of fact

have been made is a threshold question in an appeal from an administrative board. Id. If

adequate findings of fact are not made on the issue presented, we remand to the Board for

                                             3
it to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which to perform proper appellate

review. Id. Therefore, we must remand for further findings as to, first, whether Webster was

at fault and, second, whether repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience

before requiring her to repay the $600 in FPUC benefits.

       In sum, we affirm the decision requiring Webster to repay the $1,605 in state benefits

and remand for further findings regarding whether Webster is required to repay the $600 in

FPUC benefits for the reasons set forth above.

       Affirmed in part; remanded in part.

       ABRAMSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

       Tijuana Webster, pro se appellant.

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

                                             4