Scott v. Division of Unemployment Insurance
K16A-04-002 JJC
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 4, 2016Background
- Appellant Tamra Scott collected unemployment benefits May 11–22, 2015 while employed at Little Kids Swagg Day Care and did not report earnings to the Division.
- On September 23, 2015 the Division issued a fraud disqualification finding, applied retroactively to the week ending 5/16/2015, barring benefits for one year (through 5/14/2016).
- Scott did not timely appeal the fraud/disqualification determination, so it became final on October 3, 2015.
- The Division then calculated overpayments of $2,366 for benefits paid from May 16, 2015 through August 15, 2015; Scott timely appealed the overpayment amount to an Appeals Referee.
- The Appeals Referee upheld the overpayment; the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed on the record (no new evidentiary hearing); Scott appealed to Superior Court.
- Superior Court reviewed the administrative record and affirmed the Board, rejecting Scott’s arguments that she was misinformed and entitled to a Board hearing and finding no basis to disturb the overpayment calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of one-year fraud disqualification applied retroactively | Scott argued she was told she would only have to repay two weeks and thus did not appeal the disqualification | Division relied on written decision applying one-year fraud disqualification under 19 Del. C. §3314(6) | Court held disqualification properly applied retroactively and was final because not appealed |
| Scope of overpayment liability | Scott argued liability should be limited to benefits actually collected while simultaneously working (~$338) | Division argued Delaware law requires repayment of all benefits received during the disqualification year | Court held Scott liable for full overpayment ($2,366) under the statute and existing precedent |
| Requirement of Board to hold an evidentiary hearing on appeal | Scott argued she was promised a hearing and that deciding on the record violated her rights | Division argued Board may affirm on the record under 19 Del. C. §3320(a) | Court held Board may decide on the Appeals Referee record; no hearing required and procedure was lawful |
| Effect of alleged misinformation by Division employees | Scott argued she relied on erroneous oral advice limiting repayment and thus should not owe full amount | Division relied on written decision and statute; written decision controls over oral statements | Court held misinformation (even if occurred) does not override clear written decision and statutory duty to repay; argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. Dept. of Labor v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308 (Del. 1975) (standard for appellate review of administrative decisions)
- Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610 (Del. 1981) (defining substantial evidence as relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept)
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607 (1966) (substantial evidence standard in administrative review)
- Cross v. Califano, 475 F. Supp. 896 (D. Fla. 1979) (describing substantial evidence as more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance)
- Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys., 25 A.3d 778 (Del. 2011) (review standard limiting court from making its own factual findings or reweighing evidence)