Jensen v. DWS

Jensen v. DWS

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Earle Jensen,

Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services, Workforce Appeals Board,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040068-CA
 

F I L E D
(June 4, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 191

 

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Earle Jensen, Salt Lake City, Petitioner Pro Se

Michael Medley, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

-----

Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Jensen petitions this court for review of the final decision of the Workforce Appeals Board (Board) affirming the assessment of an overpayment and fraud penalty against Jensen. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.

Jensen asserts that the Board erred in determining the amount that Jensen is to pay. This court will reverse an administrative agency's required findings of fact "only if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence." Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997). This court will not disturb the Board's conclusion regarding application of law to facts unless it "exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality." Nelson v. Department of Employment Sec., 801 P.2d 158, 161 (Utah Ct. App. 1990).

Jensen filed for unemployment benefits for the weeks ending March 1, 2003 through July 26, 2003. During this time, he was employed, but generally worked less than forty hours per week. When he filed his weekly claims, Jensen reported the hours he worked during the week, but consistently under-reported his earnings. Jensen acknowledged at a department hearing that he knew had he reported his full earnings, he would not have received unemployment benefits, even though he worked less than forty hours a week.

Claimants who receive unemployment benefits to which they are not entitled based on misrepresentations are required to repay the benefit amounts obtained. See Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(5)(a), (c) (2001). In addition to the actual benefit amounts, a claimant will be assessed a civil penalty equal to the benefits received "by direct reason of his fraud." Id. § 35A-4-405(5)(c). To establish fraud, the department must show materiality, knowledge, and willfulness. See Utah Admin. Code R994-405-502. Materiality is established when a claimant makes a misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining any benefit payment to which the claimant is not entitled. See id. Knowledge is established when the claimant knew or should have known that the information submitted to the department was incorrect, or that he failed to provide required information. See id. Willfulness is established when "a claimant files claims or other documents containing false statements, responses or deliberate omissions." Id.

Jensen knowingly misrepresented his earnings while he was claiming unemployment benefits. He actually received benefits to which he was not entitled, based on the misrepresentations in his filed claims. His own testimony at the hearing establishes materiality, knowledge, and willfulness. The Board's determination of fraud, therefore, is supported by substantial evidence.

Jensen argues that the repayment amounts should be approximately one half of the assessment, based on his own formula for calculating earnings. However, his position is untenable. The claimant benefit guide clearly states that a claimant must report all earnings, and must report "gross earnings before taxes or other deductions." Jensen's assertion that "gross earnings" was unclear, and thus permitted him to generate a formula reducing his reported earnings, is untenable. In contrast, the Board's assessed amount is supported by documentation of Jensen's actual earnings and actual benefits paid.

The Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence, and its application of law to the facts of this case is reasonable and rational. See Nelson v. Department of Employment Sec., 801 P.2d 158, 161 (Utah Ct. App. 1990). Accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge