TULLO v. ADES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE JO-ANN D. TULLO, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, an Agency, Appellee. Court of Appeals Division One No. 1 CA-UB 12-0222 DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/09/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls A.D.E.S. Appeals Board No. U-1305426-BR DEPARTMENT E DECISION ORDER In an order dated July 5, 2012, this Court granted the application for appeal of claimant overpayment case, U-1305426-BR. Jo-Ann Tullo in this The order stayed the appeal and ordered the Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) to file a memorandum showing why the overpayment decision appealed from was not moot. On August 1, 2012, ADES filed a memorandum acknowledging that the July 16, 2012 corrected decision of the Appeal Tribunal in U-1318575 ( Corrected Decision ) eliminated in its entirety the overpayment at issue in the current appeal. ADES asks that we remand the matter to the Appeals Board for a hearing on the merits of Tullo s request for review, in light of the Corrected Decision. Upon consideration by the Court, Presiding Judge 1 CA-UB 12-0222 A.D.E.S. Appeals Board U-1305426-BR Maurice Portley and Judges Philip Hall and Diane M. Johnsen, participating, IT IS ORDERED vacating the Appeals Board s Decision Upon Review of March 20, 2012. July 5, 2012, Tullo s As stated in this Court s order of request for review in this case, U- 1305426-BR, should be considered timely. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding the matter to the Appeals Board for consideration of Tullo s request for review on its merits. light The Board shall consider Tullo s request for review in of the effectively Corrected eliminates Decision, the entire which, as overpayment ADES of states, $3,666 in benefits because it reversed the Determination of Deputy that was the exclusive basis for the Determinations of Overpayment. /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
