Court Opinion

ID: 9907380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 15:02:18.199879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:12.034132
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