Opinion
C.A. No.: N14A-07-008 FSS
06-17-2015
ASHLEY DOMINELLI Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD Appellee.
APPEAL
ORDER
Upon Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board - AFFIRMED
1. On April 23, 2014, a claims deputy disqualified Appellant from receiving benefits for one year based on fraud. On May 12, 2014, another deputy determined how much Appellant was overpaid. Appellant appealed both determinations May 16, 2014. An appeals referee found the appeal as to the disqualification determination untimely and affirmed the overpayment determination. Appellant then appealed only the referee's decision regarding the overpayment, which the Board affirmed. Appellant now, however, is attempting to challenge both determinations.
2. Appellant filed for and received benefits effective July 28, 2013 through March 22, 2014, when she exhausted her claim. After a wage audit, the Department of Labor discovered that beginning September 2013, Appellant had under-reported her part-time employment earnings while receiving benefits for 29 weeks. On April 23, 2014, as mentioned, a claims deputy found that Appellant was disqualified from receiving benefits. Appellant had until May 5, 2014 to file an appeal, which she did not do until May 16, 2014. As also mentioned, an appeals referee found the appeal untimely, and Appellant did not appeal that decision.
3. On May 12, 2014, also mentioned above, a claims deputy found Appellant was overpaid $5,178.00 because she "committed fraud and . . . made a false statement or representation, knowing it to be false or knowingly has failed to disclose a material fact to obtain benefits to which [s]he was not lawfully entitled." Appellant filed a timely appeal.
4. On June 4, 2014, Appellant testified before an appeals referee. The referee affirmed the overpayment determination, and Appellant appealed. Upon review of the record, the Board affirmed June 27, 2014.
5. On July 3, 2014, Appellant appealed the Board's decision, making two arguments: (1) her appeal from the disqualification should have been accepted because she never received the initial determination, and (2) she is entitled to the difference between her part-time job earnings and the total amount of benefits received.
6. Appellant argues that she first found out she was disqualified from benefits when she received a "final decision" notice for not responding to the initial disqualification determination. During the June 4, 2014 hearing, Appellant testified that if she could be heard on the disqualification determination, then she "could have prevented it"-"it" being the overpayment determination. The referee explained to Appellant that the present hearing was to address only the overpayment issue, and the disqualification determination's timeliness issue was being addressed at a separate hearing:
[I]f I rule in your favor on that timeliness determination you would get another hearing so that you could talk about what you're saying now about the fraud determination. About why you don't think you committed fraud.
7. During the hearing, Appellant agreed she received the 29 weeks of payments. Appellant testified, however, that if she does have an overpayment, it is "fair to get the balance of what [she] paid because [the State] took back all the weeks that [she] ever worked" and she did not intentionally make any false statements. Appellant argues that she is at least "entitled to the difference between what [she] was making at [her] new part time job and the total amount of $5,178.00."
8. Review of the Board's decision is limited to whether the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the decision is free from legal error. The court will not weigh evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings and conclusions.
See Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys., 25 A.3d 778, 781-82 (Del. 2011).
Id. at 782.
9. As an initial matter, this appeal is limited to the overpayment issue. Appellant's claims about timeliness and the disqualification determination are not in the record and cannot be considered. Appellant did not appeal the referee's disqualification decision. So, for one, this court has no way of knowing if Department error caused the delay. Moreover, when she did not appeal, the decision became final and binding. Therefore, Appellant cannot now argue the underlying merits of that decision.
See Tomer v. Jobe's Landscape, Inc., 2012 WL 2344638, at *2 (Del. Super. June 14, 2012) ("[T]he issue before the Board and this Court is whether you received an overpayment of benefits . . . . not whether you were eligible for unemployment benefits.").
10. The issues properly before the court are whether the record supports the findings that (1) the overpayment was directed to the correct individual; and (2) the overpayment's amount is accurate. As to the first question, Appellant does not dispute receiving the benefits. Additionally, she testified that she received notice of the overpayment termination, which she timely appealed. Accordingly, the record supports that Appellant was responsible for the overpayment.
See Duncan v. Del. Dep't of Labor, No. CIV.A. 02A-02-005 SCD, 2002 WL 31160324, at *2 (Del. Super. Sept. 10, 2002).
11. Next, the court finds no error with the Board's holding regarding the overpayment amount's accuracy. Although the record is silent as to how the overpayment was calculated, Appellant does not challenge its accuracy. Rather, she simply argues that it would be "fair" to "get the balance of how much [she] owed and [] was wrong for each week." Absent any evidence of erroneous calculation, the court concludes the amount is accurate.
12. Accordingly, the record provides substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that Appellant was overpaid $5,178.00 in benefits, which she must repay.
See 19 Del. C. § 3325. --------
For the above reasons, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Fred S. Silverman
Judge
cc: Prothonotary
Victoria W. Counihan, Esquire
Paige J. Schmittinger, Esquire
Ms. Ashley M. Dominelli
Foulk Manor North