Hockensmith v. UIAB
159, 2016
Del.Oct 10, 2016Background
- Hockensmith received Delaware unemployment benefits from April 6, 2013 to January 11, 2014 after her employer reduced her hours.
- A Division wage audit found she earned unreported wages as an in‑home care provider for JEVS during the same period.
- On January 16, 2014 the Division issued a Disqualification Decision under 19 Del. C. § 3314(6), disqualifying her for one year (Apr. 6, 2013–Apr. 5, 2014).
- After the disqualification became final, the Division issued three Overpayment Decisions in April–May 2014 establishing specific benefit amounts to recoup.
- Hockensmith unsuccessfully appealed the Disqualification Decision (dismissed as untimely on further review) and then appealed the Overpayment Decisions to the Appeals Referee, the Board, and Superior Court, arguing the Disqualification was erroneous due to alleged misinformation from a Division employee.
- The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s Overpayment rulings; on appeal the Supreme Court limited review to whether the Board’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error and affirmed the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hockensmith can relitigate the underlying Disqualification in appeals from Overpayment Decisions | Hockensmith argued the Disqualification was erroneous because a Division employee told her she did not need to report the JEVS wages | Division argued the Disqualification was final and not subject to collateral attack in the Overpayment appeals; only the Disqualification appeal could challenge it | Held: Hockensmith cannot attack the Disqualification in the Overpayment appeals; her remedy was the prior appeal which she pursued and lost |
| Whether the Board’s Overpayment determinations were supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error | Hockensmith contended the Division erred in imposing recoupment based on the Disqualification | Division maintained the Disqualification was final and the Overpayment amounts were properly calculated and noticed | Held: The Court found the Board’s decisions supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error; Superior Court affirmed |
| Whether Hockensmith received notice of the Overpayment Decisions | Hockensmith did not dispute lack of notice | Division asserted proper notice was given | Held: Hockensmith did not dispute notice; Court accepted notice was provided |
| Whether the overpayment amounts were calculated correctly | Hockensmith did not claim miscalculation | Division provided the calculations establishing specific dollar amounts | Held: No challenge to calculations; Court affirmed the amounts as not contested |
Key Cases Cited
- Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308 (Del. 1975) (standard of review: appellate review of agency decisions limited to whether conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error)