The opinion
Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 204
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. E-25-180
Opinion Delivered April 1, 2026
MATTHEW OSENG
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
BOARD OF REVIEW
V. [NO. 2025-BR-00773]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES REVERSED AND REMANDED
APPELLEE
CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge
Matthew Oseng (Oseng) appeals the decision of the Arkansas Board of Review (the
Board) affirming the determination that Oseng was required to repay benefits he previously
received in the amount of $2,464. We agree that the Board acted in haste and misstated
the factual record developed during the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) hearing;
thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Oseng was awarded benefits under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-514(a)
(Supp. 2025) on December 28, 2023. The employer filed a timely appeal. On January 2,
2024, the Tribunal reversed and denied Oseng benefits under Arkansas Code Annotated
section 11-10-514(b). This resulted in a $2,464 overpayment of benefits to Oseng from
October 15, 2023, through February 3, 2024. Following this determination, Oseng filed an
appeal to the Board, which was docketed as 2025-BR-00666. The Board dismissed the appeal
as untimely, finding Oseng’s untimeliness was not due to circumstances beyond his control.
On September 18, 2025, a notice of nonfraud overpayment determination was issued
to Oseng, requiring him to repay the benefits he received under Arkansas Code Annotated
section 11-10-532 (Supp. 2025), which provides in pertinent part:
(b)(1) If the director finds that a person has received an amount as benefits
under this chapter to which he or she was not entitled by reasons other than
fraud, willful misrepresentation, or willful nondisclosure of facts, the person
is liable to repay the amount to the Unemployment Compensation Fund.
It was determined that Oseng received benefits to which he was not entitled for reasons other
than fraud. Oseng filed a timely notice of appeal to the Tribunal, which conducted a hearing
on October 28, 2025, and affirmed the agency’s determination. Again, Oseng, appealed to
the Board, which affirmed the Tribunal’s determination that Oseng was required to repay
the benefits.
In the Board’s order, it was stated that “[Oseng] was not at fault in causing the
overpayment of benefits, but he must still show that requiring repayment would be against
equity and good conscience. During the Tribunal hearing, [Oseng] offered no evidence as to
why repaying the benefits would be against equity and good conscience. [Oseng] declined
the opportunity to answer financial questions from the hearing officer about his ability to
repay the benefits.” However, upon a review of the transcript from the hearing on October
28, 2025, before the Tribunal hearing officer, Oseng answered specific questions regarding
his financial status.
2
The following exchange occurred:
H. OFFICER: --and the cause for the overpayment. But what we also do is go
over your finances to see if you were required to pay it back if
you have the means to pay it back at the moment. So, we can go
over that now. So, are you currently employed?
CLAIMANT: So, I’m unemployed now.
H. OFFICER: Okay. Do you have any members in your household that are
currently employed?
CLAIMANT: So what does that have to do with – also no, no.
H. OFFICER: Okay. Do you have any support – receive any kind of support or
contributions from any person or agency?
CLAIMANT: Oh, no. Like so I’m interviewing. So, like I’m interviewing for
jobs right now.
H. OFFICER: Uh-huh.
CLAIMANT: Here in Texas. So, that’s kind of where I’m at with my status is
I’m currently unemployed, and I’m interviewing right now.
H. OFFICER: Okay. Well, we’ll go over the rest of these of what you have going
out or what you have currently. Do you have a savings account
currently?
CLAIMANT: I – oh, no. I just have a checking account.
H. OFFICER: Okay. Do you have stocks and bonds?
CLAIMANT: No.
H. OFFICER: Okay. Do you have any real estate other than what you may
currently reside at?
CLAIMANT: No.
3
H. OFFICER: Okay. Do you have a rent or mortgage payment you pay
monthly?
CLAIMANT: So, I understand what you’re doing here, but like if the whole
reason I’m doing the appeal so –
H. OFFICER: Uh-huh.
CLAIMANT: --is to see if I can reverse it, if it’s still in effect, I would just write
a check for the total.
H. OFFICER: Okay. So, you don’t want to do like the equity and good
conscience. So, like this is --
CLAIMANT: Like I understand what you’re doing, but like what I’d be doing
is if I can’t get it reversed based on the statements I make today–
H. Officer: Uh-huh.
CLAIMANT: -- then I’ll just be writing a check for the total.
H. OFFICER: Okay.
CLAIMANT: So, like I don’t need to like go into like –
H. OFFICER: Your finances and everything. Okay.
CLAIMANT: -- finances regarding the matter.
H. OFFICER: Okay. Yeah. And you –
CLAIMANT: I won’t - -
H. OFFICER: Okay. And you can appeal the decision made [by] the Appeal
Tribunal on that one. It would be untimely, so, they would do
a timely hearing at the Board of Review first, but like the
decision that was made on that I can’t reverse that. You know,
the only thing I could do is maybe reverse the overpayment, but
that would only be depending on your finances, but we will just
leave those at that. So, is there anything else you want to state
4
about the overpayment that we’ve not yet addressed before we
get to close the hearing?
CLAIMANT: Yeah. So, like I don’t need to go into finances.
And while Oseng may have stated that he did not need to review his finances, he had
clearly answered all the questions posed by the hearing officer with regard to his ability to
repay the money. He testified he was not employed, nor did he have a savings account or
stocks and bonds, did not own real estate, and was not supported by any agency or other
person. If adequate findings of fact are not made on the issue presented, we remand to the
Board for it to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law for us to properly review the
case. Rush v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 276, 668 S.W.3d 520. “A conclusory statement by the
Board that does not detail or analyze the facts upon which it is based is not sufficient.” Id. at
6, 668 S.W.3d 524. While Oseng testified that he may write a check should he lose his
appeal, the Board should determine whether requiring repayment would be against equity
and good conscience given his financial situation.
Thus, we reverse and remand this matter for the Board to determine whether it would
be against equity and good conscience to require repayment from Oseng.
Reversed and remanded.
HARRISON and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Matthew Oseng, pro se appellant.
Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, for appellee.
5