# Tejuana Dillard v. Director, Division of Workforce Services; And Na Security, Inc.

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 13, 2026 · 2026 Ark. App. 291

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11325363

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 13, 2026
- **Citations:** 2026 Ark. App. 291
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11325363

## Opinion text

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 291
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. E-26-15

Opinion Delivered May 13, 2026
TEJUANA DILLARD
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
BOARD OF REVIEW
V. [NO. 2025-BR-00806]

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES; AND
NA SECURITY, INC. REVERSED AND REMANDED
APPELLEES

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge

Tejuana Dillard appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Board of Review dismissing

her appeal as untimely and denying her request to reopen the appeal. We reverse and

remand.

Dillard applied for unemployment benefits in June 2024 and began receiving

benefits. On September 25, 2024, however, the Division of Workforce Services issued a

notice of agency determination finding Dillard ineligible to receive benefits. Nearly a year

later, on August 21, 2025, Dillard was mailed a notice of overpayment determination (non-

fraud). This notice stated that Dillard was required to repay $3094 in unemployment

benefits that she was not entitled to receive. The notice stated that Dillard had twenty

calendar days to appeal the determination. On September 3, 2025, Dillard filed an appeal
with the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal. Her petition for appeal stated that she was appealing

the issue of “repayment.”

Upon receiving Dillard’s appeal, the Tribunal erroneously treated it as an appeal of

the Division’s September 2024 determination that Dillard was ineligible for benefits. This

led to the Tribunal, and ultimately the Board, dismissing the appeal as untimely. The error

was that no such appeal was before the Tribunal. See Fulmer v. Dir., 2026 Ark. App. 152.

Rather, as stated in her petition for appeal, Dillard was appealing the issue of repayment.

This issue was decided in the August 21, 2025 notice of overpayment determination, and

her appeal was timely as to that notice. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for Dillard’s

appeal of that determination to be addressed.

Reversed and remanded.

GLADWIN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Tejuana Dillard, pro se appellant.

Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, for appellee.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11325363. Public record. Not legal advice.