The opinion
Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 298
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. E-22-264
JEREMY JOHNSON Opinion Delivered May 24, 2023
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
BOARD OF REVIEW
V. [NO. 2021-BR-05208]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN
APPELLEE PART
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Jeremy Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals to this court, challenging the Arkansas Board of
Review’s (“Board’s”) decision to limit the backdating of his unemployment claims. We
affirm in part and remand in part.
The Board decision in this matter reversed an Appeal Tribunal’s (“Tribunal’s”) denial
of Johnson’s request to backdate his continuing unemployment-benefits claims to the week
of May 1, 2021. In its decision, the Board found Johnson credible in his testimony that after
he had successfully filed his initial claim on or around April 22, 2021, the online reporting
system was unable to process his continuing weekly requests. It further found credible
Johnson’s testimony that he was advised multiple times by Workforce Services personnel to
continue to make weekly filing attempts online, and the system would eventually self-correct.
The Board noted that Johnson returned to a Workforce Services office on September 7,
2021, and an employee was able to assist him with successfully filing his continuing claim at
that time. As a result, the Board found good cause for Johnson’s delay in filing weekly claims.
However, the Board only authorized two weeks’ worth of backdated claims. Johnson now
appeals the Board’s decision, arguing that the backdating should extend to May 1, 2021,
when the original issues with weekly filings began.
To be eligible for weekly benefits, a claimant must comply with Arkansas Code
Annotated section 11-10-507 (Supp. 2021) and Department of Workforce Services
regulations. Requests for backdating claims is addressed in Regulation 14(b):
(G) An initial, additional, reopened or continued claim, if filed either by telephone,
electronically via the Internet or, in person, shall be considered to have been filed on
the date it is received by the Agency. If mailed, such claim shall be considered to have
been filed on the date of its postmark. Except that, if it is determined by the Agency that
a delay in the filing or any claim was due to good cause, it may be considered to have been filed
on a date no earlier than fourteen (14) days prior to the date the claim, if filed in person, by
telephone, or electronically via the Internet was received by the Agency or, if filed by
mail, was postmarked. Provided however, the Director at his discretion may waive the
restrictions in this Paragraph (G) if he finds that extraordinary circumstances exist and equity
and justice require such waiver. All such waivers shall be reported to the Employment
Security Department Advisory Council.
003.20.2-14(b) Ark. Admin. Code (WL current through April 15, 2023) (emphasis added).
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
2
could have reasonably reached its decision as a result 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.
In this case, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision to allow
backdating of Johnson’s claims. The Board found that Johnson relied on erroneous agency
advice, to his detriment. However, the record lacks findings on whether extraordinary
circumstances exist and whether equity and justice require further waiver for backdating
beyond fourteen days, as claimed by Johnson and contemplated by regulation. Therefore,
we remand to the Board for findings in accordance with Regulation 14(b)(G).
Affirmed in part; remanded in part.
HARRISON, C.J., and ABRAMSON, J., agree.
Jeremy Johnson, pro se appellant.
Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.
3