Szymborski v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EDWARD SZYMBORSKI, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. N22A-12-001 FWW
)
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE )
APPEALS BOARD, )
)
Appellees. )
Submitted: March 23, 2023
Decided: April 4, 2023
Upon Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board,
AFFIRMED.
ORDER
Edward Szymborski, pro se, 73 Oak Street, Pennsville, N.J. 08070, Appellant.
Victoria W. Counihan, Esquire, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 820 North French
Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorney for Appellee Delaware Division of
Unemployment Insurance.
Victoria Groff, Esquire, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 820 North French Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorney for Appellee Delaware Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board.
WHARTON, J.
This 4th day of April, 2023, upon consideration of Appellant Edward
Szymborski’s (“Szymborski”) Opening Brief,1 Appellee Division of Unemployment
Insurance’s letter in lieu of answering brief (“Division”),2 Szymborski’s Reply
Brief,3 and the record, it appears to the Court that:
1. On April 19, 2020, Szymborski filed for unemployment insurance
benefits.4 He was awarded traditional unemployment benefits and collected $400.00
each week.5 For some weeks he also received a weekly supplemental federal benefit
of $300.00 of Lost Wages Assistance under the federal Stafford Act, made available
during some weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic.6
2. On March 8, 2021, a Division Claims Deputy issued a determination
disqualifying Szymborski from receiving benefits because the Claims Deputy
determined that Szymborski left his employment voluntarily without good cause
attributable to his employer, Advanced Drainage Systems.7 Szymborski appealed
the Claims Deputy’s determination, but after a hearing, an appeal, a remand, another
hearing, and another appeal, the UIAB declined to hear his last appeal on December
1
Appellant’s. Op. Br., D.I. 7
2
Division’s Ans., D.I. 10. (Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3322(b), the Division is a
statutory party in interest.)
3
Appellant’s Reply Br. (Incorrectly denominated as Answering Brief), D.I. 13.
4
R. at 26.
5
Id. at 26, 76-77.
6
Id. at 33, 76-77.
7
Id. at 70-71.
2
17, 2021.8 As a result, the disqualification determination was upheld.9 When
Szymborski did not appeal to the Superior Court, the disqualification determination
became final on December 27, 2021.10
3. After the disqualification determination became final, the Division
began a separate administrative proceeding pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3325 to establish
the amount of overpayment and to require that such overpayments be recouped.
Ultimately, a Claims Deputy determined that Szymborski received $3,600.00 in
traditional unemployment benefit overpayments and $1,200.00 in Lost Wages
Assistance supplemental benefits overpayments.11 Szymborski appealed both of
these determinations. After a hearing on August 24, 2022, an Appeals Referee
issued separate decisions upholding each of the claims Deputy’s overpayment
determinations.12 Szymborski then appealed the Referee’s decisions to the UIAB
which issued a single decision affirming both overpayment decisions.13
4. On appeal, Szymborski seeks to challenge the original disqualification
determination, maintaining that he was unemployed and owes nothing.14 He also
8
Id. at 62.
9
Id.
10
Id. 10, n.1, 62.
11
Id. at 68-69, 126-128.
12
Id. at 61-64, 101-104.
13
Id. at 10-14.
14
Appellant’s Op. Br., at 1, D.I. 7.
3
argues that the UIAB made unspecified errors in calculating the amount it claims he
was overpaid.15 He seeks to have the overpayment waived.16
5. In response, the Division contends that Szymborski “cannot challenge
the merits of a final disqualification determination by appealing an overpayment
determination.”17 Because Szymborski failed to appeal the disqualification decision,
it became final on December 27, 2021. Therefore, Szymborski is precluded from
addressing the merits of the disqualification in his appeal of the overpayment
decision.18 The Division argues that its witness’ testimony and exhibits at the
hearing before the Appeals Referee provide substantial proof of the amounts of the
overpayments.19 The Division concludes that the UIAB’s decision upholding the
amounts Szymborski was overpaid is supported by the record and is free from legal
error.20
6. Counsel for the UIAB indicated that the UIAB did “not intend to file
an answering brief or to participate in this appeal” because it “understands the Mr.
Szymborski is challenging the Board’s decision on its merits” and it “does not have
an interest in seeking to have its decision upheld on appeal.”21
15
Id. at 2.
16
Id.
17
Division’s Ans. at 3, D.I. 11.
18
Id.
19
Id. at 3-4.
20
Id. at 5.
21
D.I. 10.
4
7. The UIAB’s decision must be affirmed so long as it is supported by
substantial evidence and is free from legal error.22 Substantial evidence is evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.23 While a
preponderance of evidence is not necessary, substantial evidence means “more than
a mere scintilla.”24 Moreover, because the Court does not weigh evidence, determine
questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings, it must uphold the decision
of the UIAB unless the Court finds that the UIAB “act[ed] arbitrarily or
capriciously” or its decision “exceed[ed] the bounds of reason.”25 Questions of law
are reviewed de novo.26
8. After carefully reviewing the record, the Court finds that the UIAB’s
overpayment decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal
error. Under § 3325, “when there has been an overpayment of benefits due to a
disqualification, the Division can seek recoupment of the benefits overpaid to the
claimant.”27 When the UIAB issued a decision declining to hear Szymborski’s
22
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308, 309 (Del. 1975).
23
Oceanport Indus. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. Super. 1994)
(citing Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981)).
24
Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1988).
25
PAL of Wilmington v. Graham, 2008 WL 2582986, at *4 (Del. Super. June 18,
2008).
26
Ward v. Dep’t of Elections, 2009 WL 2244413, at *1 (Del. Super. July 27, 2009).
27
See Hockensmith v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2016 WL 5899237, at *1 (Del.
Oct. 10, 2016) (citations omitted). See also Bradfield v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal.
Bd., 2012 WL 3776670, at *2 (Del. Aug. 31, 2012) (“Only after the [disqualification]
5
appeal of the disqualification determination, it upheld that decision. When
Szymborski failed to appeal that decision to this Court, it became final on December
27, 2021. Accordingly, Szymborski cannot challenge the merits of the
disqualification decision in his appeal of the overpayment decision. Once the
disqualification decision became final, his only available arguments in the
subsequent overpayment action are whether he received notice as mandated by §
3325 and whether the overpayment amount was calculated correctly.28 He does not
dispute that he received notice, and he does not present any substantive argument
that the overpayment amount was calculated incorrectly. The Court’s own review
of the testimony of the Division’s witness at the hearing before the Appeals Referee
and the supporting exhibits establishes that there is substantial evidence to support
the overpayment calculations. As a result, the UIAB’s overpayment decision cannot
be disturbed.
determination becomes final can the [Appellee] issue ‘overpayment determinations’
seeking recoupment of specific amounts.”) (citing § 3325)).
28
See § 3325 (“The Department shall issue a notice of overpayment and an order for
recoupment, stating its grounds therefore, before initiating action to collect the
overpayment. Unless the person files an appeal to an Unemployment Insurance
appeals referee within 10 days after such order was mailed to the person at the
person's last known address, the order shall be final and recoupment shall be made
in accordance with such order.”). See also Hockensmith, 2016 WL 5899237, at *2
(“The only issues in this appeal are whether Hockensmith received notice of the
Overpayment Decisions and whether the overpayment amounts were calculated
correctly.”); Starcks v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2013 WL 4848101, at *5
(Del. Super. July 30, 2013); Murray v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 1994 WL
637088, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 22, 1994).
6
THEREFORE, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ferris W. Wharton
Ferris W. Wharton, J.
7