# Ricky Lee Winkles, Jr. v. Director, Division of Workforce Services > Court of Appeals of Arkansas · March 6, 2024 · 2024 Ark. App. 173 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9948121 ## Case - **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas - **Decided:** March 6, 2024 - **Citations:** 2024 Ark. App. 173 - **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/9948121 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9948121. Public record. Not legal advice.