Drews v. Division of Unemployment Insurance
N16A-03-001 AML
| Del. Super. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Douglas S. Drews received a non-fraudulent alleged overpayment of unemployment benefits initially calculated at $135 for five weeks; he appealed.
- An appeals referee and then the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") affirmed the overpayment finding; Drews unsuccessfully disputed the calculation method.
- This Court previously affirmed liability but remanded for the Board to specify how the $135 overpayment was calculated.
- On remand the Board revised the overpayment to $130, explaining the original $135 resulted from a rounding error and showing the statutory calculation under 19 Del. C. § 3313(m).
- Drews again appealed only the calculation methodology; the Division argued the Court already rejected Drews’ alternate computation and that the Board’s remand ruling should be upheld.
- The Court limited review to whether the Board’s remand calculation was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error and affirmed the Board’s $130 overpayment determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Drews received an overpayment and how it should be calculated | Drews contends his own method of allocating reported earnings shows no overpayment | Division argues Drews’ calculation was previously rejected; remand required only specification of the Board’s computation | Court held Drews’ prior method was rejected; remand calculation by Board is supported and affirmed |
| Whether the Board’s revised overpayment amount is supported by evidence | Drews disputes rounding and allocation but does not dispute statutory formula | Division contends Board’s March 3, 2016 decision specifies calculations and corrects prior rounding error | Court held Board’s $130 figure (reflecting $26/week) is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys., 25 A.3d 778 (Del. 2011) (standard of review: substantial evidence and appellate limits on weighing evidence)
- Murphy & Landon, P.A. v. Pernic, 121 A.3d 1215 (Del. 2015) (definition and application of substantial evidence)
- Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610 (Del. 1981) (appellate review restricts court from reweighing evidence or making credibility determinations)