Watson v. DWS

Annotate this Case
Watson v. DWS

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Joseph G. Watson,

Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services, Workforce Appeals Board,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040044-CA
 

F I L E D
(May 13, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 159

 

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Joseph G. Watson, Orem, Petitioner Pro Se

Michael R. Medley, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

-----

Before Judges Billings, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    Joseph Watson seeks judicial review of a decision of the Workforce Appeals Board (Board) assessing an overpayment and penalty based upon a determination that he received unemployment benefits that he was not entitled to receive. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.

    Watson contends that the Board either had no competent evidence that he applied for benefits for the weeks in question or that there was no proof that he worked or was paid during the two weeks at issue. This constitutes a challenge to the Board's findings of fact. "When reviewing the factual findings made by an administrative agency, an appellate court will generally reverse only if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence." Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997). We defer to the agency because "it stands in a superior position from which to evaluate and weigh the evidence and assess the credibility and accuracy of witnesses' recollections." Harken v. Board of Oil, Gas & Mining, 920 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Utah 1996).

    Watson's testimony was both vague and contradictory. He did not dispute that he worked for Advanced Computer Solutions or that he received $800 for this work. He disputed the dates that the employer reported the work, but admitted he had no record showing the dates he worked. He claimed that because he was aware that he would not be entitled to benefits for any week in which he earned wages in excess of his weekly benefit amount, he did not file claims for benefits for any such week as a regular practice. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) accessed the computer record of benefit claims filed by Watson, which demonstrated that Watson did not report the wages he earned from Advanced Computer Solutions during the weeks ending July 6 and July 13, 2002 or any other week. In addition, the claim records demonstrated that there were no weeks during the period in question in which Watson did not file a claim for benefits. The ALJ found the employer's report and the agency records more credible than Watson's testimony and found that Watson failed to accurately report his work and earnings for the two weeks in question, while receiving a total overpayment of benefits in the amount of $692. The challenged factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the agency record as a whole, and we will not reverse them.

    A claimant is disqualified from benefits "[f]or each week with respect to which the claimant made a false statement or representation or knowingly failed to report a material fact to obtain" benefits. Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(5)(a) (2001). In order to find a fraud overpayment and assess statutory penalties, the evidence must establish materiality, knowledge, and willfulness. See Utah Admin. Code R994-405-502. Materiality is established when a claimant makes false statements or fails to provide accurate information for the purpose of obtaining benefit payments in any amount. See id. Knowledge is established when a claimant submits information he knows or should know is not correct. See id. Finally, willfulness is established when a claimant filed claims containing false statements. See id.

    Watson filed a claim for unemployment benefits for each week at issue. He failed to report the earnings he admitted that he earned from Advanced Computer Solutions in any week; therefore, his contention that he did not file a claim for benefits during any week in which he earned more than his benefit amount is not supported. As a result of his inaccurate reports, he obtained benefits to which he was not entitled. 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 Johnson v. Department of Employment Sec., 782 P.2d 965, 968 (Utah Ct. App. 1989).

    Watson complains that the statutory penalty for the overpayment is too harsh. The statutory provisions require repayment of the excess benefits obtained through inaccurate reporting, imposition of a penalty in an amount equal to the benefits obtained by fraud, and a disqualification for sixteen weeks for the first week, and an additional six weeks for any additional week in which benefits were wrongfully obtained. See Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(5)(a),(c) (2001). The Board correctly states that neither the Department of workforce Services, nor this court, has discretion to modify or refuse to impose the statutory penalties.

We affirm the decision of the Board.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

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.