Maddox v. Integrity Staffing Solutions ( 2017 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MARK MADDOX, )
Appellant, )
)
)
)
v. ) C.A. No. N16A-09-011 ALR
)
)
)
INTEGRITY STAFFING )
SOLUTIONS and )
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE )
APPEAL BOARD, )
Appellees. )
ORDER
On Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
AFFIRMED
Submitted: June 22, 2017
Decided: August 17, 2017
This is an appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“UIAB”).
Appellant Mark Maddox (“Claimant”) appeals from a UIAB decision concluding
that Claimant is liable for an overpayment in the amount of $7,260.00. Upon
consideration of Claimant’s appeal and Delaware Division of Unemployment
Insurance1 opposition thereto; the facts, arguments, and legal authorities set forth by
1
The Delaware Division of Unemployment Insurance appeared in this appeal to
address the merits of the UIAB’s decision.
the parties; statutory and decisional law; and the entire record in this case, the Court
hereby finds as follows:
1. On October 25, 2015, Claimant filed a claim for unemployment
insurance benefits, and was awarded benefits. Claimant collected a weekly sum of
$330.00 starting November 14, 2015 and ending April 23, 2016. When filing for
unemployment benefits, Claimant certified that Claimant was unemployed and not
collecting any wages from another employer. Claimant had an ongoing obligation
to report any and all wages or income from any source during each week that
Claimant collected unemployment benefits. Moreover, Claimant was aware that if
Claimant was disqualified for fraudulently collecting benefits, then Claimant would
be liable to repay any overpayment.
2. Through a new hire cross-match, the Division received information that
Claimant was collecting wages from another employer, Integrity Staffing Solutions
(“Staffing Solutions”), while also collecting unemployment benefits from November
28, 2015 to April 23, 2016. Claimant did not report the Staffing Solutions wages
when Claimant refiled for benefits each week.
3. On May 25, 2016, Claimant was disqualified from receipt of
unemployment benefits for fraud, specifically knowingly failing to disclose a
material fact to obtain benefits to which he was not lawfully entitled.2
2
See 19 Del. C. § 3314(6).
2
4. Claimant appealed the disqualification but failed to appear at the
scheduled hearing on June 21, 2016. Disqualification became final.
5. After disqualification became final, on July 11, 2016, the Division
issued an overpayment determination in the amount of $7,260.00 for 22 weeks of
benefits collected from November 28, 2015 to April 23, 2016 by Claimant.3
6. Claimant appealed the overpayment determination on August 4, 2016.
7. On August 5, 2016, a Division Appeals Referee upheld the
overpayment determination.
8. Ten days later, Claimant appealed to the UIAB.
9. On August 17, 2016, the UIAB affirmed the overpayment decision.4
10. On September 28, 2016, Claimant filed this appeal challenging the
UIAB’s decision that Claimant was responsible for overpayment.5
11. The scope of review for any court considering a decision of the UIAB
is whether the UIAB abused its discretion. Absent abuse of discretion the Court
must uphold a decision of the UIAB.6 An appellate review of a decision by the
3
See 19 Del. C. § 3325.
4
See 19 Del. C. § 3320(a).
5
See 19 Del. C. § 3323.
6
Funk v. Unemp’t Ins. App. Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991); Dept. of Labor v.
Med. Placement Serv. Inc., 457 A.2d 382, 383 (Del. Super. 1982).
3
UIAB is limited to determining whether the UIAB’s findings and conclusions are
free from legal error and are supported by substantial evidence in the record.7
12. The Court finds that the record supports the conclusion that Claimant
was fraudulently collecting benefits while also collecting wages. Claimant was
required to report any and all wages or income from any source during each week
that Claimant collected unemployment benefits. There is substantial record
evidence that Claimant knowingly failed to disclose a material fact to obtain benefits
to which Claimant was not lawfully entitled. Moreover, by completion of the
Division’s online application for unemployment benefits, Claimant was on notice
that if Claimant was found disqualified, Claimant would be liable to repay any
overpayment.
13. The Court is satisfied that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the findings of the UIAB, and that such findings are free from legal error.
Moreover, the UIAB did not abuse its discretion, nor did it act in an arbitrary manner
by denying Claimant’s appeal.
7
See PAL of Wilmington v. Graham, 2008 WL 2582986, *3 (Del. Super. June 18,
2008).
4
NOW, THEREFORE, this 17th day of August, 2017, the UIAB Decision
that Claimant is liable for an overpayment in the amount of $7,260.00 from
November 28, 2015 to April 23, 2016 is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
______________________________
The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
5