Migenes v. Department of Workforce Services ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                          
    2016 UT App 129
    THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    VICTOR MIGENES,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES,
    Respondent.
    Per Curiam Decision
    No. 20150742-CA
    Filed June 23, 2016
    Original Proceeding in this Court
    Victor Migenes, Petitioner Pro Se
    Suzan Pixton, Attorney for Respondent
    Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN, and
    KATE A. TOOMEY.
    PER CURIAM:
    ¶1      Victor Migenes seeks review of the Workforce Appeals
    Board’s (the Board) decision that he committed fraud in the
    receipt of unemployment benefits and its order that he pay a
    total of $1,032 for receiving an overpayment of benefits and as a
    civil penalty. We decline to disturb the Board's decision.
    ¶2     The Board’s determination that Migenes committed fraud
    is “a mixed question of law and fact” that is more fact-like than
    law-like “because the trial court *or agency+ is in a superior
    position to decide it” and because the case “does not lend itself
    to consistent resolution by a uniform body of appellate
    precedent.” Carbon County v. Workforce Appeals Board., 
    2013 UT 41
    , ¶ 7, 
    308 P.3d 477
     (alteration in original) (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, “*w+e grant more
    deference” to the Board’s decision. 
    Id.
    Migenes v. Department of Workforce Services
    ¶3      A claimant for unemployment benefits is ineligible to
    receive benefits for any particular week in which the claimant
    obtains a benefit “by willfully making a false statement or
    representation or by knowingly failing to report a material fact.”
    Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(5)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2012). As a
    result, if a claimant bases his claim upon false information and
    obtains unemployment benefits to which he was not entitled, the
    claimant must repay any amounts received. See id. § 35A-4-
    405(5)(c)(i). The claimant must also pay, as a civil penalty, an
    amount equal to the amounts received as a result of the fraud.
    See id.
    ¶4     The Department of Workforce Services’ (the Department)
    rules state that “*f+raud requires a willful misrepresentation or
    concealment of information for the purpose of obtaining
    unemployment benefits.” Utah Admin. Code R994-406-401(2).
    Thus, in order to establish fraud, the Department must establish
    materiality of the statement, knowledge, and willfulness. See id.
    R994-406-401(1). “Materiality is established when a claimant
    makes false statements or fails to provide accurate information
    for the purpose of obtaining . . . any benefit payment to which
    the claimant is not entitled.” Id. R994-406-401(1)(a)(i)(A).
    Knowledge is established when the claimant knew or should
    have known that the information submitted to the Department
    was incorrect or that the claimant failed to provide required
    information. See id. R994-406-401(1)(b). Finally, “*w+illfulness is
    established when a claimant files claims or other documents
    containing false statements, responses or deliberate omissions.”
    Id. R994-406-401(1)(c).
    ¶5    Here, the evidence supports the Board’s findings and
    ultimate conclusions. During the two weeks in question,
    Migenes obtained paid temporary employment and worked for
    twelve hours one week and fifteen hours the other week.
    However, in submitting his weekly claim for benefits, Migenes
    answered “no” to the Department’s question, “During the week,
    20150742-CA                     2               
    2016 UT App 129
    Migenes v. Department of Workforce Services
    did you work or attend paid training?” Because these statements
    were false and were made for the purpose of obtaining benefits
    for which Migenes was not eligible, they support findings of
    materiality and willfulness. Further, because Migenes knew or
    should have known that his statements were false, the
    statements also support a finding of knowledge. Accordingly,
    evidence supports the Board’s findings.
    ¶6      Migenes argues that he did not commit fraud because he
    lacked the intent to deceive. In so arguing, Migenes relies on
    common law definitions of fraud, which include an intent
    element. However, as stated above, the definition of fraud for
    purposes of the unemployment compensation regulatory scheme
    is set forth in the Utah Administrative Code and has no element
    specifically requiring an intent to deceive. Instead, willfulness is
    established by the filing of claims containing false statements,
    responses, or deliberate omissions. See 
    id.
     Thus, Migenes’s intent
    is irrelevant except as it pertains to the definitions and
    requirements set forth in the administrative rules.
    ¶7     For these reasons we decline to disturb the decision of the
    Board.
    20150742-CA                     3                
    2016 UT App 129
                                

Document Info

Docket Number: 20150742-CA

Judges: Orme, Christiansen, Toomey

Filed Date: 6/23/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2024