Opinion
C.A. No. N16A-07-003 CEB
01-20-2017
MICHAEL DAMICO, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE and THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Appellees.
Upon Consideration of Appellant's Appeal of Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. AFFIRMED. ORDER
This 20th day of January, 2017 upon consideration of the pro se appeal of Michael Damico ("Claimant") from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding Claimant liable for an overpayment in the amount of $3,509.00, it appears to the Court that:
1. Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits effective March 8, 2015, to which he was awarded and collected a weekly benefit amount of $306.00.
2. On March 9, 2016, a Division Claims Deputy issued a Notice of Determination finding that Claimant fraudulently collected unemployment benefits for knowingly failing to disclose a material fact to obtain benefits to which he was not lawfully entitled. Pursuant to a wage audit investigation, the Claims Deputy determined that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for a period of one year, beginning the week of July 4, 2015 through the week ending July 2, 2016, pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(6). The Notice of Determination was mailed to Claimant's address of record at the time, and there is no evidence that the notice was returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service.
3. Having 10 days to file Claimant's appeal of the disqualification finding, the Notice of Determination became final and legally binding on or before March 21, 2016, the first business day following March 19, 2016. Claimant filed a late notice of appeal and the disqualification finding was affirmed by the Appeals Referee ("Referee"). Claimant signed the Notice of Receipt of Benefit Rights and Responsibilities and agreed that if he was to be disqualified from benefits for fraud, then he would be liable to repay all unemployment benefits he received for the disqualified weeks with an annual interest amount of 18%. Claimant did not appeal the decision of the Referee.
4. It is important to note that the Claimant's appeal process involved two separate proceedings. With the finalization of the disqualification finding marking completion of the first stage, the Division of Unemployment ("Division") began a separate administrative proceeding to establish the overpayment amount and require that amount be recouped by payment to the Division. On April 1, 2016, a Division Claims Deputy issued an overpayment determination in accordance with 19 Del. C. § 3325, establishing an overpayment in the amount of $3,509.00 for the 14 weeks during the time period of July 4, 2015 to October 10, 2015, and ordering recoupment of that overpaid amount.
See Bradfield v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2012 WL 3776670, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 31, 2012) ("19 Del. C. § 3325 permits the Department of Labor to issue a 'notice of overpayment and an order for recoupment,' but only if it is first 'finally determined' that the respondent 'was not entitled' to benefits.").
5. Claimant filed a timely appeal of the overpayment determination, and a hearing was held before the Appeals Referee on April 26, 2016. In this stage of the proceedings, the issue before the Referee was whether or not Claimant had received any sum of benefits to which the Department of Labor determined he was not entitled. The Referee upheld the decision of the Claims Deputy, finding that Claimant is liable for the overpayment amount whether the sum was received through fraud or mistake. Claimant again appealed to the Appeals Board ("Board") and the Board affirmed, finding no error in the determination reached by the Referee.
6. Claimant then filed his appeal to this Court on July 7, 2016, on the basis that his employer had incorrectly reported his work hours to the Department of Labor and that he was unaware he ever received a pay raise.
7. The Court's review is limited to a determination of whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. Substantial evidence is "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion of law." On appeal, this Court will not "weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings." Errors of law are reviewed de novo. In the absence of legal error, the Board's decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The Board has abused its discretion only when its decision "exceeds the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances and has ignored recognized law or practice so as to produce injustice."
Arrants v. Home Depot, 65 A.3d 601, 604 (Del. 2013).
Wyatt v. Rescare Home Care, 81 A.3d 1253, 1258-59 (Del. 2013) (internal citations omitted).
Person-Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159, 1161 (Del. 2009).
Arrants, 65 A.3d at 604.
Id.
McIntyre v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2008 WL 1886342, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 29, 2008) aff'd, 962 A.2d 917 (Del. 2008).
8. In Smith v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Board, this Court established that when it has been determined that the claimant was found ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, the issue before the court becomes whether or not claimant received those benefits, not whether or not the claimant was eligible for the benefits. 19 Del. C. § 3325 provides as follows:
2013 WL 1718059, at *5 (Del. Super. Apr. 22, 2013).
"Any person who has received any sum as benefits under this chapter to which it is finally determined that the person was not entitled shall be liable to repay in cash said overpayment, to the Department for the Unemployment Compensation Fund, or to have such sum deduced from future benefits payable to the person under this chapter. The person shall be so liable regardless of whether such sum was received through fraud or mistake, or whether that person was legally awarded the payment of benefits at the time but on appeal was subsequently found not to be entitled thereto." (emphasis added)
9. With the final determination of Claimant's disqualification from unemployment benefits, the issue before the Board and before the Court today is only whether Claimant received benefits while ineligible. Where a claimant has received adequate notice of the effect of a disqualification decision and of the right to appeal it, the claimant cannot appeal the basis, or merits, of the disqualification through a subsequent appeal of an overpayment determination.
Starcks v. UIAB, 2013 WL 4848101, at *4 (Del. Super. July 20, 2013). --------
10. Claimant does not dispute that he received the notice of overpayment determination, and the Division provided proof of the benefits paid to the Claimant during the disqualification period. Rather Claimant's argument on appeal is that his hours were not properly reported by his employer and that underreporting his wages to the Department of Labor was simply a product of never being notified by his employer of his pay raise.
11. At this point, Claimant's opportunity to appeal his disqualification determination has expired. Claimant was found ineligible for unemployment benefits because of his failure to report earnings from an employer, and that disqualification was a final and binding decision. The decision that Claimant was eligible or ineligible for benefits is no longer reviewable. Since Claimant was not entitled to unemployment benefits, he is therefore liable and must pay back all of the unemployment benefits received during the 14 week disqualification period of July 4, 2015 to October 10, 2015 for a total of $3,509.00.
12. Based on the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that the Board applied the correct legal standards and the finding that Claimant must repay the overpayment of benefits received is based upon substantial evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
Judge Charles E. Butler