DANIEL ABADOM v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 535 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. E-22-420 Opinion Delivered November DANIEL ABADOM 15, 2023 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW V. [NO. 2022-BR-00319] DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES REMANDED FOR FUTHER APPELLEE FINDINGS MIKE MURPHY, Judge This is an unbriefed unemployment-benefits case. A companion case, No. E-22-419, is also handed down today. Here, in No. E-22-420, appellant, Daniel Abadom, challenges the Arkansas Board of Review’s (Board’s) decision that Abadom was not available for suitable work, thus denying him unemployment benefits for the weeks ending April 3 through May 29, 2021. We are unable to give this case and its companion meaningful review, however, due to inconsistencies in the record. Accordingly, we remand for the record to be clarified to settle the inconsistencies and, if necessary, for additional findings and conclusion of law. After a thorough review of the record, it appears that there are discrepancies that cannot be overlooked. Here, the Board ostensibly affirms the decision made by the Appeal Tribunal in appeal No. 2021-AT-23620. However, the Tribunal decision concerns whether Abadom filed claims for benefits in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated section 11- 10-521(a) or section 11-10-507(1) (Supp. 2023) and Regulation No. 14(b) of the Division, see Ark. Admin. Code 003.20.2-14(b) (current with amendments received through Sept. 15, 2023), (the frameworks concerning delays in filing claims and backdating). Given this inconsistency, we are directing that the record be settled. See Dawson v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 374, at 3. If adequate findings of fact are not made on the issue presented, we remand to the Board for findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which to perform proper appellate review. Id. Therefore, to remedy the inconsistencies, we remand to the Board of Review with instructions to ascertain if a mistake has been made and, if so, to provide notice to the parties and correct the record accordingly and, if necessary, for additional findings and conclusion of law. Remanded for further findings. WOOD and BROWN, JJ., agree. Daniel Abadom, 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.
