The opinion
Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 173
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. E-22-653
Opinion Delivered March 6, 2024
RICKY LEE WINKLES, JR. APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW
V.
[NO. 2022-BR-01365]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES
APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED
MIKE MURPHY, Judge
Ricky Winkles appeals the Board of Review’s (Board’s) dismissal of his
unemployment-benefits appeal on the basis that his untimely appeal to the Board was not
due to circumstances beyond his control. We reverse and remand.
The Board found that Winkles had until May 2, 2022, to file his appeal, but the
appeal was not filed until May 31. Pursuant to Paulino v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 676, 559 S.W.2d
760 (Ark. App. 1980), Winkles was entitled to a hearing to determine if the late filing was
due to circumstances beyond his control. The Board found that Winkles was afforded a
hearing on October 26, 2022, but the record contains some discrepancies that must be
addressed.
First, the record contains a notice of postponement that was mailed by the Board to
Winkles on October 27, 2022, stating that his October 26 hearing was rescheduled to
Thursday, November 17. (Winkles had previously indicated that he was available to
participate in the October 26 hearing.) That same day a notice of telephone hearing was also
mailed to Winkles confirming the November 17 date and instructing that should Winkles
need to continue or postpone the hearing, he must make the request in writing to the Board
of Review before the date of the hearing. On October 31, the Board received a letter from
Winkles requesting that the hearing be rescheduled to accommodate his work schedule.
There is nothing in the record indicating that the Board acknowledged his request. The
Board called Winkles on November 17,Winkles did not answer, and the Board found that
Winkles did not establish that the untimely filing was due to circumstances beyond
Winkles’s control.
Due to the inconsistency between the Board’s finding that a hearing was conducted
October 26 and the notice in the record rescheduling the same hearing to November,
coupled with Winkles’s written request mailed before the November date asking to
reschedule, we reverse and remand to the Board with the instruction that Winkles is afforded
the opportunity to be heard at a Paulino hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
HARRISON, C.J., and WOOD, J., agree.
Ricky Lee Winkles, Jr., pro se appellant.
Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.
2