# Dellmarie Dawson v. Director, Department of Workforce Services

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · December 6, 2023 · 2023 Ark. App. 574

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9908360

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** December 6, 2023
- **Citations:** 2023 Ark. App. 574
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 1 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/9908360

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9908360. Public record. Not legal advice.