DELLMARIE DAWSON v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES (Majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 574 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. E-22-298 Opinion Delivered December DELLMARIE DAWSON 6, 2023 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW V. [NO. 2021-BR-05253] DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES DISMISSED APPELLEE WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge This case returns to us with corrected errors. Here, appellant, Dellmarie Dawson (Dawson), was issued a notice of agency determination on September 20, 2021, denying her benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-515 on finding that she refused without good cause to accept an offer of suitable work. In response, Dawson filed a timely appeal of this determination to the Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal), which conducted a hearing on October 18, 2021, and issued a decision in Appeal No. 2021-AT-20558 that affirmed the Division determination. Later, Dawson filed an untimely appeal to the Board of Review (Board) from the decision of the Tribunal. As a result, Dawson was afforded a timeliness hearing before the Board by telephone on May 3, 2022, to establish whether the late filing of the appeal was the result of circumstances beyond her control. Thereafter, the Board issued a decision in Appeal No. 2021-BR-05253, allowing Dawson’s appeal on finding that it was timely filed and affirming the Tribunal decision. Dawson appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. This court remanded the case back to the Board for additional findings and conclusions of law. Now, as this case returns, the Board has reversed the Tribunal’s decision finding that Dawson refused to accept an offer of suitable work. Consequently, Dawson is allowed to receive benefits in compliance with the law. Therefore, it appears that the appeal before us is moot. As such, we dismiss. Dismissed. WOOD and MURPHY, JJ., agree. Dellmarie Dawson, pro se appellant. Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee. 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.