Fletcher v. Department of Workforce Services

----ooOoo----

Eugene Fletcher,
Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

Department of Workforce Services,
Workforce Appeals Board,
Respondent and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20020193-CA

F I L E D
May 2, 2002 2002 UT App 145 -----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys:
Eugene L. Fletcher, Logan, Petitioner Pro Se
Suzan Pixton, Salt Lake City, for Respondent -----

Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on its own motion for consideration of summary affirmance. Petitioner seeks review of the agency determination that Petitioner owes $2,880 in overpayment and $2,650 in civil fines due to fraud in failing to disclose wages received while collecting benefits. At a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge, Petitioner acknowledged that he was aware he had not disclosed relevant information. He indicated that he felt his previous employer "owed" him the money for firing him without just cause. Petitioner further argued that his family was impoverished and in need of the money.

"[I]ntent to defraud is inherent in the claims themselves which contain false statements and filing of the claim is a manifestation of intent to defraud." Slinger v. Industrial Commission, 733 P.2d 122, 125 (Utah 1987); see also, Richmond v. Department of Employment Sec., 666 P.2d 313, 314 (Utah 1983); Whitney v. Industrial Comm'n, 585 P.2d 780, 781 (Utah 1978). Further, a finding of fraud by the Commission will not be upset by the reviewing court unless there is a "lack of sufficient evidence in support thereof." Taylor v. Department of Employment Sec., 647 P.2d 1, 1 (Utah 1982); Millett v. Industrial Comm'n, 609 P.2d 946, 947 (Utah 1980). Evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the findings, and the decision must be affirmed if there is any evidence that reasonably supports the determination. See Taylor, 647 P.2d at 1.

Petitioner presented no evidence to rebut the indication of fraud. To the contrary, Petitioner confirmed that he knew he was providing false information in the telephone survey. The evidence supports the determination of the agency; therefore, we summarily affirm its decision.
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Presiding Judge
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge