The opinion
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