Alexander v. Division of Unemployment Insurance, N16A-07-010 FWW

Michele Alexander applied for and received unemployment benefits beginning May 3, 2015 ($330/week).
She filed an additional claim on January 27, 2016; statute 19 Del. C. § 3315(1) required her to register with the Division of Employment and Training and maintain a Delaware Joblink account.
Alexander failed to register or report to the local office by the deadline; the Claims Deputy issued a determination (March 11, 2016) finding her ineligible effective the week ending January 30, 2016; Alexander did not appeal that determination and it became final.
The Division issued an overpayment decision under 19 Del. C. § 3325, finding Alexander overpaid $990 for three weeks (Jan. 30–Feb. 13, 2016); Alexander appealed the overpayment determination and asserted miscommunications and vacation prevented compliance.
The Appeals Referee and then the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (UIAB) affirmed the overpayment decision; the Superior Court reviewed the UIAB decision and affirmed it, holding Alexander could not relitigate the final ineligibility determination and she did not dispute notice or amount.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claimant may challenge merits of prior, final ineligibility determination in an overpayment appeal	Alexander: miscommunications and vacation excused noncompliance with § 3315(1) so she should not owe repayment	Appellee: final ineligibility determination is binding; overpayment appeal cannot relitigate those merits	Court: Held Alexander cannot challenge the final ineligibility decision in the overpayment proceeding; only notice and calculation may be litigated
Whether Division properly recouped benefits under § 3325	Alexander: impliedly argued recoupment was improper because of excusable noncompliance	Appellee: recoupment proper once ineligibility determination was final	Court: Held recoupment authorized under § 3325 where ineligibility determination is final
Whether claimant received required notice of overpayment	Alexander: did not dispute receipt of notice	Appellee: claimant received notice as required by statute	Court: Held notice was received (undisputed)
Whether overpayment amount calculation was correct	Alexander: did not dispute amount calculation	Appellee: amount ($990) correctly calculated for three weeks	Court: Held amount was correctly calculated (undisputed)

Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308 (Del. 1975) (standard for reviewing UIAB decisions)
Oceanport Indus. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892 (Del. 1994) (definition and scope of substantial evidence review)
Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102 (Del. 1988) (substantial evidence requires more than a scintilla)