Robinson v. Dir.

2021 Ark. App. 485

638 S.W.3d 29

Ronnie ROBINSON, Appellant

v.DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, Appellee

No. E-21-163

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION III.

Opinion Delivered December 8, 2021

Ronnie Robinson, pro se appellant.

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

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

Appellant, Ronnie Robinson, appeals an adverse ruling of the Board of Review (Board) affirming the Appeal Tribunal's (Tribunal's) dismissal of his unemployment claim as untimely. We reverse and remand.

I. Background and Procedural History

On July 7, 2020, the Division of Workforce Services ("DWS") issued a notice of determination of entitlement that found Robinson was not eligible for pandemic-unemployment-assistance ("PUA") benefits because he was not a covered individual under the governing sections of the CARES Act. Robinson filed an untimely appeal of the determination to the Tribunal on August 4, 2020. On October 29, the Tribunal conducted a hearing pursuant to Paulino v. Daniels , 269 Ark. 676, 599 S.W.2d 760 (Ark. App. 1980), to determine whether the untimely filing of the appeal was due to circumstances outside Robinson's control. The Tribunal found that Robinson had received the determination at his residence but did not act quickly enough to file a timely appeal; thus, the untimely filing was not a result of circumstances beyond his control. It dismissed his appeal in a decision with a mailing date of October 30, 2020.

Robinson then filed a timely appeal of that decision to the Board. The Board, without a hearing after review of the Tribunal record, upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of Robinson's claim for PUA benefits. Robinson has now appealed from the Board's decision dismissing his PUA claim.

II. Standard of Review

Board decisions are upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. Blanton v. Dir. , 2019 Ark. App. 205, 575 S.W.3d 186. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. In appeals of unemployment-compensation cases, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board's findings. Id. Even if there is evidence that could support a different decision, our review is limited to whether the Board could have reasonably reached its decision as a result of the evidence presented. Id. However, our function on appeal is not merely to rubber-stamp decisions arising from the Board. Thomas v. Dir. , 2019 Ark. App. 468, 587 S.W.3d 612 ; Wilson v. Dir. , 2017 Ark. App. 171, 517 S.W.3d 427.

III. Analysis

Appeals from DWS decisions must be filed or postmarked within twenty calendar days from the date the adverse decision was mailed; however, late appeals may be considered as timely if the lateness was due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-524(a) (Supp. 2021). In this matter, the initial adverse PUA decision was mailed on July 7, 2020; therefore, Robinson had until July 27 to file a timely appeal. The procedural record in this matter is somewhat confusing due to clerical and administrative errors by DWS, but there are documents contained therein that are illuminating.

The Board's reasoning for dismissing Robinson's August 4, 2020, appeal as untimely rests in an instance of testimony in which Robinson claimed he did not receive the PUA determination. The Board concluded that Robinson failed to rebut the presumption that a letter is received by the person to whom it is addressed, citing Skaggs v. State , 287 Ark. 259, 697 S.W.2d 913 (1985), and Moore v. State , 285 Ark. 321, 686 S.W.2d 790 (1985). However, Robinson testified that he called DWS multiple times and was eventually told they would mail it to him. While he does not provide a time frame for his phone calls, the record shows that Robinson made regular calls to DWS, as reflected through printed service-inquiry screens, to inquire about statuses of claims. Per DWS notes from Robinson's call on July 6, 2020, he was given a time frame of six to eight weeks for a decision, and he was told that the decision cannot be given by phone. He was advised on July 8 that no decision had been made. He called on July 20, and notes indicate that he was told both that his decision was still pending and that a decision was made and mailed. On July 21, Robinson was told that he would have to wait on the decision letter to come in the mail. While the Board concludes that these inquiries were "primarily regarding his [unemployment] claim," there is no...