William H. Caraway v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CC-01207-COA
WILLIAM H. CARAWAY
v.
MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
06/28/2001
HON. LARRY EUGENE ROBERTS
CLARKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JAMES A. WILLIAMS
ALBERT B. WHITE
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
AFFIRMED THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE
MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT APPELLANT WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS.
AFFIRMED - 09/03/2002
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
10/8/2002
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE, AND MYERS, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶ 1. William H. Caraway filed a claim for unemployment benefits on July 23, 2000, with the Mississippi
Employment Security Commission asserting that he had been laid off by his employer, A & B Enterprises.
The Commission awarded Caraway monetary benefits because of A & B Enterprises's failure to timely file
Form EXR-21 which provides the Commission with any information that would disqualify Caraway from
receiving benefits. A & B Enterprises filed the form and appealed the Commission's determination asserting
that Caraway had not shown up for work for two days nor called to explain his absence and based on
company policy was terminated. The referee scheduled a hearing but Caraway failed to appear. The referee
examined the record and determined that Caraway had voluntarily quit his employment and that he was not
entitled to the monetary benefits already paid to Caraway and that he was obligated to repay these benefits.
¶ 2. Caraway appealed the referee's decision and again failed to appear at the hearing. The Board of
Review affirmed the referee's decision. Caraway appealed the case to the Clarke County Circuit Court,
Honorable Larry Roberts presiding. The circuit court found that the findings of fact made by the Board of
Review were substantially supported by the evidence and affirmed the Board's decision. Aggrieved by this
decision, Caraway perfected the present appeal to this Court asserting that A & B Enterprises should not
have been allowed to file Form EXR-21 after the filing date and that the burden of proof was improperly
placed on Caraway to prove that he did not voluntarily quit.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
¶ 3. The standard of review of administrative agency decisions is "[a]n agency's conclusions must remain
undisturbed unless the agency's order 1) is not supported by substantial evidence, 2) is arbitrary or
capricious, 3) is beyond the scope or power granted to the agency , or 4) violates one's constitutional
rights." Maxwell v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm'n, 792 So. 2d 1031, 1032 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App.
2001). Upon judicial review, "the findings of the board of review as to the facts, if supported by substantial
evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of said court shall be confined
to questions of law." Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-531 (Rev. 2000). With these standards in mind, we look to
the issues raised in this appeal.
1. WHETHER A & B ENTERPRISES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO
UNTIMELY FILE ITS RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S NOTICE OF A CLAIM.
¶ 4. Caraway contends in his first point of error that A & B Enterprises's response should not have been
accepted as it was untimely filed. Caraway filed his initial claim with the Commission on July 23, 2000.
Upon receipt of the claim, the Commission forwarded A & B a form on which the company was to provide
any information that would disqualify Caraway from receiving benefits. A & B failed to respond in a timely
fashion and the Commission made an initial determination awarding benefits to Caraway. A & B was given
an opportunity to appeal the Commission's decision and properly did so. Caraway failed to appear at the
hearing and the referee examined the record including the document tardily filed by A & B and found that
Caraway had voluntarily quit his job and had not been laid off as claimed.
¶ 5. An initial determination may be reconsidered upon a showing of good cause. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5517 (Rev. 2000). A & B was given fourteen days in which to request reconsideration of the Commission's
decision or file a notice of appeal. A & B timely requested reconsideration of the Commission's decision.
Based on the information contained in the untimely filed document, the Commission amended its decision
and determined that Caraway was not entitled to the benefits received. Caraway contends that the
Commission should not have considered the document as it was untimely filed and A & B did not present
good cause for the untimely filing. The document did not indicate that if the document was filed late that
good cause would have to be shown in order for the document to be considered. The Commission
considered this information when it amended its determination and found that Caraway was not entitled to
unemployment benefits. The document gave the Commission good cause to reconsider and amend its initial
determination. The Commission acted properly in this matter. This issue is without merit.
2. WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS IMPROPERLY PLACED ON
CARAWAY TO PROVE THAT HE DID NOT VOLUNTARILY QUIT.
¶ 6. Caraway contends in his next point of error that the burden of proof was improperly placed on him to
prove that he did not voluntarily quit instead of forcing A & B to prove that he was not laid off. "The burden
of proof of good cause for leaving work shall be on the claimant, and the burden of proof of misconduct
shall be on the employer." Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(1)(c) (Rev. 2000). The Commission found that
Caraway voluntarily left his employment without good cause and was disqualified from receiving benefits.
Upon so finding, Caraway was given the burden of proving that he did not voluntarily leave his employment.
The burden of proof was properly placed on Caraway.
¶ 7. The question of whether an employee voluntarily left employment or was discharged is a question of
fact for the Commission to resolve. Hodge v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm'n, 757 So. 2d 268,
270 (¶9) (Miss. 2000). The Commission's findings of fact are deemed conclusive so long as they are
supported by substantial evidence and not purported to be fraudulent. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-531 (Rev.
2000). The facts found by the Commission and adopted by its Board of Review are supported by
substantial evidence. Caraway does not allege that the findings were fraudulently made. This issue is without
merit.
3. WHETHER THE COMMISSION IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM
CARAWAY FOR THE AMOUNT OF BENEFITS OVERPAID.
¶ 8. The Commission asserts in its cross-appeal that it has the right to offset the monies wrongfully paid to
Caraway in the future should he again become unemployed. "Any benefits finally determined to have been
erroneously paid shall be set up as an overpayment to the claimant and must be liquidated before any future
benefits can be paid to the claimant." Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-517 (Rev. 2000). The erroneously received
benefits may either be deducted from any future benefits payable to the claimant or the claimant may be
liable to directly repay the benefit to the Commission. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-19(4) (Rev. 2000). In
order for the Commission to directly pursue collection measures against the claimant, the Commission must
find that: "1) A person received benefits, 2) at a time when he was ineligible, 3) by reason of a
nondisclosure or a misrepresentation of a material fact, 4) made by that person or another, 5) irrespective
of fraudulent intent or knowledge of the omitted or misrepresented fact." Mississippi Employment Sec.
Comm'n v. Sellers, 505 So. 2d 281, 283 (Miss. 1987). The Commission's findings do not express that this
is a case of fraud. The Commission may not pursue active collection measures against Caraway. The
Commission may offset any future payments payable to Caraway by the amount of overage erroneously
paid to Caraway.
CONCLUSION
¶ 9. The judgment of the circuit court affirming the Commission's determination that Caraway was not
entitled to benefits is without error. Once the Commission received the documents filed by Caraway's
employer, the Commission had good cause to reconsider its initial determination. Upon finding that
Caraway voluntarily quit his employment, the burden of proof was properly placed on Caraway to prove
that this did not occur. Caraway failed to present evidence that he was laid off. The issues raised by
Caraway are without merit. The Commission may not pursue active collection measures against Caraway
for the benefits erroneously paid to him. The Commission may instead offset any benefits that Caraway may
become entitled to in the future against the amount of benefits erroneously paid.
¶ 10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLARKE COUNTY IS AFFIRMED
AS MODIFIED.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
