Hickman v. Dept. of Workforce ServicesAnnotate this Case
----ooOoo---- James D. Hickman,
Department of Workforce Services,
Workforce Appeals Board,
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 981656-CA
F I L E D
January 28, 1999
1999 UT App 015
Original Proceeding in this Court
James D. Hickman, Sandy, Petitioner Pro Se
Suzan Pixton, Salt Lake City, for Respondent
Before Judges Bench, Billings, and Orme.
Petitioner James D. Hickman seeks judicial review of a decision of the Workforce Appeals Board assessing an overpayment of unemployment benefits and imposing a penalty.
In the agency proceedings and before this court, Hickman has not disputed the factual findings he incorrectly reported that he had not worked during the two weeks ending March 14 and March 21, 1998, and that he did so knowingly. Accordingly, he has no basis for arguing that the fraud overpayment provisions of Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(5) (1997) do not apply to his case, or were not properly applied by the Board. Instead, he seeks to challenge the statutory provisions prescribing an initial waiting week before commencement of benefits and the denial of benefits for the period during which he worked prior to receiving his first paycheck.
Hickman has stated no basis for relief by this court under Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4) (1997). Specifically, he has not demonstrated that the "statute or rule on which the agency action is based, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied," Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(a), or any other basis for judicial relief from the Board's decision. Neither the Board nor this court is empowered to modify, or exempt the petitioner from, the application of Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(5) based upon his disagreement with provisions of the Utah Employment Security Act.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Board.
Russell W. Bench, Judge
Judith M. Billings, Judge
Gregory K. Orme, Judge