Drews v. Division of Unemployment Insurance
N16A-05-013 AML
| Del. Super. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Douglas S. Drews received unemployment benefits and the Division determined he had a non-fraudulent overpayment for two weeks originally calculated at $296.00.
- Drews appealed; an appeals referee and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) affirmed the $296 overpayment.
- On first judicial review, this Court affirmed liability but remanded because the Division acknowledged a mathematical error and the record lacked an explanation of how the overpayment was calculated.
- On remand the appeals referee revised the total to $294 (stating a rounding correction under 19 Del. C. § 3313(m))—$147 per week—but provided no calculation or explanation.
- The Board adopted the referee’s unexplained $294 figure. Drews again appealed, disputing the amount (he conceded there was some overpayment).
- The Court reversed and remanded a second time because neither the referee nor the Board explained how the revised overpayment was calculated, leaving the record insufficient to assess substantial evidence or legal correctness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s adopted recalculation of the overpayment is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error | Drews: the Board/referee failed to explain or support the revised amount and he disputes the correct overpayment figure | Division: the Board and referee calculated the overpayment in accordance with 19 Del. C. § 3313(m); decision should be affirmed | Court: Reversed and remanded — the record lacks the required explanation/calculation so there is insufficient evidence to uphold the amount; further proceedings required |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys., 25 A.3d 778 (Del. 2011) (standard of review for Board factual findings and substantial evidence defined)
- 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) (procedural limits on appellate review of administrative factfinding)
- Boughton v. Dept. of Labor, 300 A.2d 25 (Del. Super. 1972) (when Board adopts referee findings, court reviews referee's findings and legal conclusions)