SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
T. HENLEY GRAVES SUSSEX COU NTY C OUR THO USE
JUDGE 1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2
GEORGETOWN, DE 19947
TELEPHONE (302) 856-5257
January 6, 2015
Amy Layfield Paige J. Schmittinger
Pro se Appellant Deputy Attorney General
21717 E. Piney Grove Rd. Department of Justice
Georgetown, DE 19947 Carvel State Building
820 N. French Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Layfield v. Division of Unemployment & Unemployment Insurance
Appeals Board C.A. No. S14A-06-003 THG
Dear Parties:
Before the Court is an appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“UIAB”) with
regard to claimant Amy Layfield’s (“Claimant”) overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits.
For the reasons that follow, the Board’s decision is AFFIRMED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In October of 2011, Claimant was employed as a receptionist and document controller.
One morning she was called into the Human Resources Office and was told she was being
terminated due to downsizing at the company. She was given three months severance pay and
was told she could apply for unemployment benefits after January 21, 2012.
Claimant filed for unemployment insurance benefits with the Department of Labor,
Division of Unemployment Insurance (“the Division”), on January 22, 2012. She was paid a
weekly benefit amount of $330.00. She was informed that she could earn up to $139.00 per
week without affecting her weekly benefit payment. Claimant signed the Notice of Receipt of
1
Benefit Rights and Responsibilities form (“the Form”) indicating she understood she was liable
to repay the Division any sum of money equal to the benefits she received if it was determined
she was not entitled to those benefits.
Towards the end of January 2012, Claimant and her sister-in- law started cleaning the law
office of Stumpf, Vickers, & Sandy. They were paid $200.00 a week, which they split equally.1
This income was not reported to the Division.2
Claimant filed a claim for benefits on January 22, 2014. The Division determined,
pursuant to 19 Del. C. §3314(6), Claimant had been overpaid benefits in the amount of $6,600.00
for twenty (20) weeks over the period ranging from January 28, 2012 to June 9, 2012. On
January 28, 2014, the claims deputy assigned to Claimant determined she was disqualified from
further receipt of unemployment benefits. As such, Claimant was unable to receive benefits with
or for the week ending January 28, 2012 through week ending January 26, 2013. The
determination became final on February 7, 2014 because no appeal was filed.
On March 13, 2014, the Division determinated Claimant was required to repay the
benefits she received during the January 28, 2012 to June 9, 2012 time frame.3 Claimant timely
appealed this determination. A hearing was held April 10, 2014 and a decision was rendered on
April 14, 2014.4 There, the Referee affirmed the decision of the Division, finding “[d]ue to . . .
1
R. at 33, 35.
2
Claimant asserts she was not thinking she had to report any income as long as it was under the $139.00
thresho ld amount. She ad mits it was wrong for her not to re port the $100.0 0 a we ek she earned through the twenty
week period at issue.
3
R. at 15.
4
R. at 29.
2
non-fraudulent actions, Claimant was overpaid benefits in the amount of $6,600.00 for twenty
(20) weeks from January 28, 2012 until June 9, 2012. Claimant is liable to repay those benefits .
. . .”5
After the Referee’s decision, Claimant timely filed an appeal with the UIAB. A review
hearing was held on April 23, 2014. The UIAB affirmed the Referee’s decision on May 27,
2014, finding “no error in the determination reached by the Appeals Referee,” and that the Board
felt that additional fact-finding would not be necessary or helpful.6 Claimant timely filed for
reconsideration on May 29, 2014.7 On June 16, 2014 Claimant filed an appeal in this Court as to
the UIAB’s May 27 decision.8 Subsequently, the UIAB denied Claimant’s motion for rehearing
on the grounds that “Claimant has offered no basis for the Board to revisit its prior decision . . .
.”9
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing appeals from the UIAB, this Court examines only the record upon which
the UIAB relied in making its decision.10 The Court only determines whether substantial
evidence supported the UIAB’s decision, and whether the UIAB’s decision is free from legal
error.11 The necessary degree of evidence is only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
5
R. at 32.
6
R. at 44.
7
R. at 46.
8
R. at 51.
9
R. at 49.
10
Burgos v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 2011 W L 1487 076, *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 19, 201 1).
11
Moss v. Mountaire Farms, 2014 W L 4933 060, *2 (Del. Super. Sept. 29, 2014).
3
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”12 Evaluating the evidence, determining
credibility issues, and deciphering factual questions are not within the Court’s purview.13 In
short, the Court only decides if there is a sufficient basis to support the Board’s decision.14
DISCUSSION
In her opening brief,15 Claimant asserts she should not be required to repay the Division
because she was not committing fraud, and only failed to report the income she received from out
of mistake. However, even a mistake does not prevent the Division from seeking a recoupment
of benefits.
An individual on unemployment insurance benefits can be disqualified from receiving
further benefits if they commit certain acts.16 The relevant portion of 19 Del. C. §3314, which
addresses disqualification, states:
If the [Division] determines such individual has made a false statement or
representation knowing it to be false or knowingly failed to disclose a material
fact to obtain benefits to which the individual was not lawfully entitled, and such
disqualification shall be for a period of 1 year beginning with the date on which
the first false statement, false representation or failure to disclose a material fact
occurred. A disqualification issued pursuant to this subsection shall be considered
a disqualification due to fraud (emphasis added).17
Thus, even if a claimant knowingly, but mistakenly, fails to disclose a material fact, she can still
12
Id.
13
Burgos, 2011 WL 1487076 at *2.
14
Moss, 2014 WL 4933060 at *2.
15
The UIAB has not submitted an answering brief in response to Claimant’s opening brief. The UIAB cites
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Barron, 470 A.2d 25 7 (Del. 1983) for the propo sition that a judge, or agency acting in a
quasi-judicial capacity, has no perso nal interest in a higher tribuna l sustaining its ruling. As such, this Court will
only base its de cision o n the rec ord below and Claimant’s op ening b rief.
16
19 Del. C. §3314.
17
19 Del. C. §3314 (6).
4
be disqualified from receiving benefits for a one year period.18
If such a fraud, or mistake, occurs, the Division is entitled to recoup overpayments of
benefits.19 The relevant statute, 19 Del. C. §3325, states:
Any person who has received any sum as benefits under this chapter to which it is
finally determined that the person was not entitled shall be liable to repay . . . said
overpayment . . . or to have such sum deducted from future benefits payable to the
person under this chapter. The person shall be so liable regardless of whether
such sum was received through fraud or mistake (emphasis added) . . . .20
APPLICATION
The Court sympathizes with Claimant if she merely made a mistake by not reporting the
income she received from cleaning the law office. But, by her mistake, she inadvertently
committed a fraud on the Division as defined in 19 Del. C. §3314 (6). Claimant failed to report
to the Division the income she made cleaning during the January 28, 2012 to June 9, 2012 time
period. The Form, which Claimant signed21 on January 23, 2012 states:
I understand that if . . . I am finally determined by a claims deputy, appeals
referee, the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, or a Court not to have been
entitled to . . . benefits, I am liable to repay the [Division] . . . a sum of money
equal to the benefits I received. I understand that I am liable to repay the Division
for beneifts I have already received whether I received them as a result of my
fraudulent act(s) or by mistake (emphasis added) . . . .22
18
See, 19 Del. C. §3314 (6); (It should be noted that the Referee Decision specifically states Claimant
committed “non-fraudulent actions,” but due to those actions she was “overpaid benefits in the amount of $6,600.00
(emphasis added).” Claimant should know that no one has declared she is a fraud, but rather that she committed a
costly mistake. However, because of that mistake, she needs to repay the Division the benefits she received during
the time perio d stated above pursuant to the laws o f Delaware.)
19
19 Del. C. §3325.
20
Id.
21
“A party to a co ntract cannot silently accept its benefits and then object to its perceived disad vantages,
nor can a party’s failure to read a contract justify avoidance.” Graham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 A.2d
908 , 913 (Del. 198 9). B ecause Claimant signed the Fo rm, she will be held to the respo nsibilities stated in it.
22
R. at 40.
5
The Form goes on to state that the Claimant understands she is “required to report any and all
wages or income from any source every week that [she] claim[s] unemployment benefits . . . and
that a failure to report any wages or income received during any week [could] result in a
disqualification from benefits for one year. . . .”23 By signing the Form, Claimant memorialized
she was aware that she could lose her benefits if she failed to report any income earned, and
would have to repay them, even if by mistake. Claimant has no right to retain the money she
received after failing to accurately report her income.
CONCLUSION
Based on the record considered by the UIAB below, this Court finds there is ample
evidence for a reasonable mind to determine the UIAB’s decision is well founded. The decision
is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. As such the decision of the
UIAB is AFFIRMED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ T. Henley Graves
_______________________________
T. Henley Graves
23
Id.
6