Case Law Bushnell v. Dir., Ark. Dep't of Commerce

Bushnell v. Dir., Ark. Dep't of Commerce

Document Cited Authorities (2) Cited in (3) Related

Andrew Bushnell, pro se appellant.

Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

Appellant Andrew Bushnell appeals the Board's denial of his request for unemployment benefits for the weeks of April 4 through June 6, 2020. His claims for those weeks were rejected as untimely. We reverse and remand.

Bushnell filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits on March 30, 2020. He filed his claim in Arkansas although he also earned wages in Texas. The agency requested proof of Bushnell's out-of-state wages to determine Bushnell's eligibility for benefits. Bushnell promptly provided his Texas wage information. Bushnell attempted to file claims online every week but was met with a message that he was not eligible. He called the unemployment phone line almost daily, and he went to the local office three times while the decision was pending. The Division of Workforce Services had misplaced the Texas wage records and did not find them until June 2020. Bushnell was then permitted to file written claims for the weeks of April 4 through June 20, 2020, to ask that those claims be considered timely.

The Department of Workforce Services issued an agency decision finding that Bushnell's claims were untimely and that he had failed to show good cause to permit backdating of the weekly claims. Bushnell appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, which conducted a hearing and found that Bushnell was entitled to two weeks (the weeks ending June 13 and June 20) of backdated claims because the delay in filing was due to good cause. The Appeal Tribunal recognized that Bushnell provided the Texas wage information the day after it was requested, recognized all the efforts Bushnell made to keep his weekly filing in compliance with the law, and agreed that Bushnell was not successful in getting his claims processed "due to circumstances beyond his control." The Appeal Tribunal recited that the applicable law limited backdating to fourteen days in this circumstance. Bushnell appealed again to the Board of Review, which acknowledged that the delay in processing was due to the claimant's earning wages in two states but stated that this was not an extraordinary circumstance. The Board found that the Appeal Tribunal's decision was correct in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, so the Board affirmed and adopted the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. This appeal followed.

Bushnell argues that he did everything he could to properly file his claim on a weekly basis. Bushnell contends that it is undisputed that it was the agency's fault that his Texas wage information was misplaced and the agency's fault for the delay in his claims being processed properly. He argues that, in that circumstance, he should have been permitted to backdate his claim for more than two weeks, which is specifically permitted by law. We agree with Bushnell.

Bushnell was required to comply with Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-507 by making a claim for benefits for each week in accordance with the Workforce Services’ regulations. As relevant here, Bushnell was required to comply with Regulation 14(b):

(G) An initial, additional, reopened or continued claim, if filed either by telephone, electronically via the Internet or, in person, shall be considered to have been filed on the date it is received by the Agency. If mailed, such claim shall be considered
...
2 cases
Document | Arkansas Court of Appeals – 2023
Keathley v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs.
"...court's appellate review is limited to whether the Board could have reasonably reached its decision on the basis of the evidence presented. Id. However, our function on appeal is not merely to rubber stamp Board decisions. Id. Under Arkansas law, to be eligible to receive benefits, a claima..."
Document | Arkansas Court of Appeals – 2022
Miller v. Dir., Div. of Workforce Servs.
"...S.W.3d 29. Substantial evidence is that which reasonable minds might accept as being adequate to support a conclusion. Bushnell v. Dir. , 2022 Ark. App. 194, 645 S.W.3d 24. We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board's find..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
Document | Arkansas Court of Appeals – 2023
Keathley v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs.
"...court's appellate review is limited to whether the Board could have reasonably reached its decision on the basis of the evidence presented. Id. However, our function on appeal is not merely to rubber stamp Board decisions. Id. Under Arkansas law, to be eligible to receive benefits, a claima..."
Document | Arkansas Court of Appeals – 2022
Miller v. Dir., Div. of Workforce Servs.
"...S.W.3d 29. Substantial evidence is that which reasonable minds might accept as being adequate to support a conclusion. Bushnell v. Dir. , 2022 Ark. App. 194, 645 S.W.3d 24. We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board's find..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex