Charya v. Seed of Hope ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PADMAJA CHARYA, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. )
) C.A. No. N21A-07-001 CLS
A SEED OF HOPE, JEWISH FAMILY )
SERVICES, )
and )
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE )
APPEAL BOARD )
)
Appellees.
Date Submitted: October 15, 2021
Date Decided: December 15, 2021
Upon Appellant’s Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board. AFFIRMED.
ORDER
Padmaja Charya, Wilmington, DE, 19802, Pro Se, Appellant.
Victoria W. Counihan, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington,
Delaware, 19801, Attorney for Appellee, Delaware Division of Unemployment
Insurance.
Victoria Groff, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware,
19801, Attorney for Appellee, Delaware Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Lauren E.M. Russell, Esquire, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington,
Delaware, 19801, Attorney for Appellee, Attorney for Appellee, A Seed of Hope
Counseling Center, LLC
SCOTT, J.
1
Upon consideration of Appellant Padmaja Charya’s (“Ms. Charya”) appeal
from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the “Board”)
affirming the decision of the Appeals Referee and ordering Ms. Charya to pay back
benefits as she was not eligible for unemployment benefits, and the record of the
case, it appears:
1. Ms. Charya filed for unemployment benefits on December 1, 2019, as her
employment with A Seed of Hope Counseling Center, LLC, ended. She was
awarded and collected benefits for the weeks of December 7, 2019, and
December 14, 2019. Ms. Charya’s weekly benefit was $400.00, and she
elected to have federal taxes withdrawn and paid on her behalf to the IRS.
2. The Delaware Division of Unemployment (“Division”), Appellee in this
present case, investigated Ms. Charya’s claim and requested Ms. Charya
provide severance information to the Division by January 9, 2020, even
though nothing in Ms. Charya’s file indicated she may have received a
severance package when her employment ended. The requested severance
information was not provided by the deadline.
3. On January 14, 2020, a Claims Deputy, issued a decision (“ineligibility
decision”), finding Ms. Charya ineligible for benefits “effective with or for
2
week ending 12/07/19” for failure to respond to the Division’s investigation.1
This ineligibility decision is the decision used to determine the overpayment
amount, which is the issue before the Court in this appeal. The findings of fact
of the ineligibility decision states: “The claimant was asked to provide copies
of severance information. The information was due no later than January 9,
2020. The claimant has not provided this information. They are ineligible for
UI benefits until such time as the information is received.”
4. Ms. Charya had until January 24, 2020, to appeal the ineligibility decision
before the decision became binding. Ms. Charya filed an untimely appeal of
the ineligibility decision on January 30, 2020.
5. On March 9, 2020, an Appeals Referee, Kathleen D. Smith, held a hearing
and issued a decision on the sole issue of the timeliness of Ms. Charya’s
appeal. At the hearing, Ms. Charya testified she was dealing with a school
shooting, death of her father, and her work and professional schedules were
very demanding. She also stated she supplied all the documentation requested
and admittedly missed the deadline. Because there was no evidence the
ineligibility decision was mailed to the wrong address, which created a
1
19 Del. C. 3315(2). Unemployment Insurance Regulation 6.2.1 provides a
claimant must report to the Delaware Division of Unemployment Insurance
whenever instructed to do so to establish eligibility for benefits.
3
rebuttable presumption of delivery, and because Ms. Charya failed to provide
evidence “severe circumstance” which prevented her from filing the appeal
timely, the appeal was rejected, and the ineligibility decision became final and
binding.
6. Ms. Charya appealed the Appeals Referee Kathleen D. Smith’s decision
regarding her timeliness and on April 21, 2020, the Board denied review of
her appeal and affirmed the Appeals Referee’s determination finding Ms.
Charya did not provide “severe circumstances” which did not allow her to file
her appeal on time. Ms. Charya declined to appeal further. The ineligibility
decision is final and is not the appeal before this Court.
7. On July 22, 2020, the Division issued an overpayment order of $120.00
(“$120.00 overpayment order”) because nonfraudulent overpayment was
found for the same two weeks (the weeks ending on December 7, 2019, and
December 14, 2019), which Ms. Charya paid back to the Division. We do not
have access to the facts and circumstances surrounding this overpayment
order as it was not included in the record produced by the Board. However,
in the Division stated in its answering brief the overpayment of $120.00 was
due to Ms. Charya underreporting wages.
4
8. Consequently, because of the ineligibility decision, the Division then began
a separate administrative proceeding to establish the overpayment amount to
recoup monies owed, which is the basis of this appeal. On December 2, 2020,
a Division Claims Deputy issued an overpayment determination
(“overpayment decision”) establishing overpayment of $800.00 total for the
two weeks Ms. Charya collected benefits in December 2019.
8. Ms. Charya appealed the overpayment decision. Upon a hearing before
Appeals Referee Kathleen D. Smith on April 6, 2021, the Appeals Referee
upheld the overpayment decision on April 8, 2021. Ms. Charya appealed to
the Board on April 10, 2021, and the Board affirmed Appeals Referee
Kathleen D. Smith’s decision on June 17, 2021. In the Board’s affirmation
opinion, it stated “the only issues to be considered during an appeal of an
overpayment decision are: (1) whether Claimant received overpayment
notice; (2) whether the amount of the overpayment is accurate; and (3)
whether the overpayment is directed toward the proper individual.” The
Board addressed the validity of the ineligibility decision by acknowledging
the ineligibility decision as valid and binding because Ms. Charya did not
timely appeal the ineligibility determination and she was heard on timeliness.
9. On June 27, 2021, Ms. Charya appealed the Board’s affirmation of Appeals
Referee Kathleen D. Smith’s overpayment decision to this Court. On
5
September 1, 2021, Ms. Charya filed her Opening Brief. On September 21,
2021, the Division filed an Answering Brief. Then, on October 5, 2021, Ms.
Charya filed a Reply Brief to the Division’s Answering Brief.
10. On appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, the Superior
Court must determine if the Board's factual findings are supported by
substantial evidence in the record and free from legal error.2 Substantial
evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.”3 The Court must review the record to
determine if the evidence is legally adequate to support the Board's factual
findings.4 The Court does not “weigh evidence, determine questions of
credibility or make its own factual evidence findings.”5
11. On appeal, Ms. Charya attempts to relitigate the validity of the ineligibility
decision, which is not before this Court. She contends she never received
severance pay from her employer, nor did she receive information on
severance policies. Attached to Ms. Charya’s appeal is an email thread from
her former employer. She also raises an issue of overpayment of $120.00, due
2
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, 621 A.2d 340, 342 (Del.1993).
3
Histed v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (citing Olney v.
Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (1981)).
4
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del.1965).
5
Id. at 67.
6
to underreported wages from the same two weeks in December 2019 at issue
here.
12. The Division argues the ineligibility decision is final and binding because
Ms. Charya filed an untimely appeal, which was denied by an Appeals Referee
after a hearing and was again denied by the Board on appeal because Ms.
Charya did not have good cause for her untimeliness. Therefore, because the
appealed decision is based upon the ineligibility decision, the Board made its
decision based on substantial evidence and is free from legal error. We agree.
The Division also contends any monies paid previously would be credited
toward the approved overpayment amount, $800.00.
11. The overpayment decision, which is the decision Ms. Charya has appealed
to this Court, is based upon the final and binding ineligibility decision. As
previously stated, the ineligibility decision became final and binding when the
Claims Deputy's found Ms. Charya’s appeal of the ineligibility decision was
untimely, and she lacked good cause for being untimely and the Board
affirmed the Claims Deputy when Ms. Charya attempted to appeal the issue
of timeliness.
12. Because the appeal before this Court, the overpayment decision, was
based on the final and binding ineligibility decision, it is supported by
7
substantial evidence, and the Court finds the overpayment decision to be free
from legal error.
12. The Court also finds the Board did not abuse its discretion when it
affirmed the Referee's determination, or when it declined to hear the appeal
pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3320. There is no evidence there was any
administrative error on the part of the Department of Labor. The Court finds
that these circumstances do not rise to a level where the Board would be
required to act in the interests of justice.
13. As mentioned in the Division’s Answering Brief, the payment Ms. Charya
made before the overpayment decision was issued of $120.00 shall serve as a
credit to the $800.00 now owed.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Calvin L. Scott
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.
8