The opinion
Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 39
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. E-22-438
Opinion Delivered January 24, 2024
ONTARIA JACKSON APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW
V. [NO. 2022-BR-00237]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE
SERVICES REVERSED AND DISMISSED
APPELLEE
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
This case returns to us after a remand to supplement the record. Jackson v. Dir., 2023
Ark. App. 511. In this matter, appellant, Ontaria Jackson, appeals an adverse ruling of the
Board of Review (Board) affirming the Appeal Tribunal’s (Tribunal’s) finding that she
untimely filed an overpayment-determination appeal and is therefore required to repay
unemployment benefits. We reverse and dismiss.
I. Background and Procedural History
On April 5, 2021, the Division of Workforce Services (DWS) issued a “Notice of
Nonfraud Overpayment Determination” finding that Jackson must repay $11,625 in
unemployment benefits for which she had initially been found eligible but was later
disqualified. On December 9, 2021, a tax-intercept letter was mailed to her, informing her
1
that this amount could also be garnished from any government tax refunds to which she may
be entitled. On December 22, 2021, she filed an appeal of the overpayment determination
to the Tribunal.
The record indicates that after a hearing on Ontaria’s appeal of the underlying
unemployment-benefits disqualification determination, the Tribunal overturned her
disqualification in a decision mailed May 20, 2021. It specifically found that she was
discharged due to lack of work and was eligible to receive unemployment benefits. This is
the last action taken on the underlying benefits claim and therefore a final agency decision.
II. Standard of Review
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
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.
III. Analysis
2
Ontaria’s argument regarding lack of timeliness in filing the overpayment appeal is
that she previously received an agency decision in her favor allowing her benefits claim. She
argues that she appealed only because she received a tax-intercept letter that contradicted the
official agency qualification determination. We find this argument persuasive. The record
supports Ontaria’s claims of conflicting decisions, letters, and communications regarding
overpayment requirement. At her hearing before the Tribunal on January 18, 2022, the
hearing officer conceded that the notice of nonfraud overpayment should be reversed
because of her successful appeal on the underlying merits, yet the Tribunal dismissed the
overpayment appeal. Therefore, the Board lacked substantial evidence that Ontaria’s late
overpayment appeal was not due to circumstances beyond her control due to the
contradictory government-sourced correspondence Ontaria received. We therefore reverse
the Board’s decision on this issue.
Because Ontaria’s original denial of benefits was reversed by the Tribunal in a final
agency decision, there is now no evidence of her receiving benefits to which she was not
entitled, as required for pursuit of nonfraudulent repayment under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-
10-532(b) (Supp. 2023). There is now no overpayment to collect, so this matter is dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
GLADWIN and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Ontaria Jackson, pro se appellant.
Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.
3