Roe v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs.

Full title: ERIC ROE APPELLANT v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES APPELLEE

Court: ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III

Date published: Feb 6, 2013

2013 Ark. App. 70 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

No. E12-656

02-06-2013

ERIC ROE APPELLANT v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES APPELLEE

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS

BOARD OF REVIEW

[NO. 2011-BR-03335]

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER , Judge

This is an unbriefed unemployment-benefits case. Eric Roe appeals a decision of the Arkansas Board of Review (Board), which concluded that he is liable to repay the Department of Workforce Services (Department) a total of $5412 in unemployment benefits. We remand for supplementation of the record.

Eric Roe worked as a graphic artist for Baggo, Inc., until March 11, 2011, when Roe resigned in lieu of discharge. Roe filed a claim for unemployment benefits, which the Department initially granted. Baggo, Inc., appealed. On June 14, 2011, the Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) reversed the Department's decision, determining that Roe had been discharged for misconduct in connection with work and was not entitled to benefits. Roe appealed to the Board. On June 23, 2011, the Board acknowledged receipt of Roe's appeal from the decision of the Tribunal.¹ However, the decision of the Board is not in the record.

1 The initial appeal to the Tribunal on Roe's entitlement to benefits was designated 2011-AT-05417. Roe's appeal to the Board from the Tribunal's denial of benefits was designated 2011-BR-01538.

On September 9, 2011, the Department issued a "Notification of the Right to Request Waiver of Potential Overpayment". Roe did not timely respond to the Notification. On September 26, 2011, the Department mailed to Roe a "Notice of Non-fraud Overpayment Determination", stating that he had been overpaid benefits in the amount of $5412. Roe appealed the overpayment determination.²

2 The appeal from the overpayment determination to the Tribunal was designated 2011-AT-14586.

The Tribunal affirmed the Department's determination of overpayment. Roe appealed the overpayment determination to the Board.³ The Board affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. The appeal of the Board's overpayment determination is currently before us.

3 The appeal of the Tribunal's determination of overpayment to the Board was designated 2011-BR-03335.
--------

Before the merits of this appeal can be reached, we must first have before us a copy of the Board's final determination on Roe's eligibility for benefits. An appeal of an overpayment determination while the underlying eligibility determination is still pending before the Board would be premature. Holloway v. Director, 2012 Ark. App. 635. Thus, we remand for supplementation of the record to include the Board's determination on the issue of Roe's eligibility for benefits.

GLOVER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.

No briefs filed.