STACY BRIDGES v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 498 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. E-22-404 Opinion Delivered November STACY BRIDGES APPELLANT V. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES 1, 2023 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW [NO. 2022-BR-00048] REMANDED FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OR TO SUPPLEMENT THE APPELLEE RECORD CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge Appellant Stacy Bridges appeals from an order issued by the Arkansas Board of Review (Board) affirming the determination of the Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) requiring her to repay $6,096 in unemployment compensation benefits. We remand for additional findings or to supplement the record. On September 29, 2021, the Division of Workforce Services (DWS) mailed Bridges a notice of agency determination advising her that because she had been discharged from her employment due to negligence in performing her job duties, she was disqualified from receiving benefits as of January 8, 2021. Then, on November 4, 2021, DWS sent Bridges a notice of non-fraud overpayment determination, notifying her that, due to her earlier disqualification, she was obligated to repay benefits in the amount of $6,096. Bridges appealed both adverse determinations to the Tribunal on November 9, 2021. On November 30, the Tribunal conducted a hearing addressing both appeals. Following the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the September 29 determination finding that it was untimely1 and that the late filing was not due to circumstances beyond Bridges’s control.2 The Tribunal affirmed the November 4 DWS determination finding that Bridges was liable to repay $6,096 in overpayment benefits. The record before us reveals that Bridges sought to appeal both adverse rulings from the Tribunal; yet our record only includes an opinion from the Board addressing the Tribunal’s overpayment determination. As such, the case is remanded to the Board to either supplement our record to include its opinion related to Bridges’s appeal from the Paulino hearing or, if no such opinion exists, to make additional findings regarding the timeliness of her appeal to the Tribunal. Remanded for additional findings or to supplement the record. ABRAMSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree. Stacy Bridges, pro se appellant. Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee. 1 “The claimant . . . may appeal a determination made by the agency by filing a written notice of appeal with the Appeal Tribunal or at any office of the Division of Workforce Services within twenty (20) calendar days after the mailing of the notice to his or her last known address.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-524(a)(1) (Supp. 2023). 2 See Paulino v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 676, 599 S.W.3d 760 (1980) (due process requires that the appellant be afforded a hearing to determine whether the late filing was due to circumstances beyond her control). 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.
