Opinion
Case No. 20090552-CA.
Filed April 15, 2010. Not For Official Publication
Original Proceeding in this Court.
Ronald D. Ellsworth, Discovery Bay, California, Petitioner Pro Se.
Michael R. Medley, Salt Lake City, for Respondent.
Before Judges Davis, McHugh, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Ronald D. Ellsworth challenges the Workforce Appeals Board's (the Board) finding that he fraudulently obtained unemployment benefits from the State of Utah while concurrently obtaining unemployment benefits from the State of California. Because substantial evidence supports the Board's findings, we will not set aside its decision.
Ellsworth, whose permanent residence is in California, temporarily relocated to Utah to complete a project for a Utah-based company. When he completed the job in April 2008, Ellsworth returned to California. On April 8, 2008, he filed a claim for unemployment benefits in California (the California claim) by answering questions over the telephone. The California claim had an effective date of April 6, 2008, and he received a California claimant guide a few days later. When he filed the claim, Ellsworth spoke with a California unemployment insurance representative who "told him he should file his claim in Utah since that was where he had worked for the previous year." According to Ellsworth, he did not expect to receive benefits from California, so he filed an additional claim for unemployment benefits in Utah via telephone, using the Department of Workforce Services' (the Department) Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system on April 9, 2008 (the first Utah claim). The first Utah claim also had an effective date of April 6, 2008.
In filing the first Utah claim, Ellsworth was asked a series of questions to determine his eligibility for benefits. One question, which Ellsworth answered in the negative, asked, "Have you applied for benefits from railroad or other state?" Ellsworth also failed to answer two related questions: "Have you worked in two or more states?" and "During the last 18 months has all employment been in Utah?" After completing the claims, Ellsworth affirmatively "certif[ied] that [he] answered the IVR questions truthfully and correctly."
A few weeks later, Ellsworth began receiving unemployment benefit payments from both Utah and California. Despite filing weekly claims in both states during this time period, Ellsworth did not attempt to contact the Department to correct his earlier misstatement or inform them about his receipt of California benefits. The payments from both states continued until September 2008, when Ellsworth began working again. In January 2009, Ellsworth's new job "was cancelled" and he re-opened his claim for Utah benefits (the second Utah claim). Ellsworth "again answered `no' when asked if he had filed a claim in another state." When an audit of Ellsworth's claim showed that he had received benefits in both Utah and California, the Department terminated his benefits and, after determining that Ellsworth's actions were fraudulent, ordered him to pay the Department a total of $8008: repayment of the $4004 he received in benefits and an additional civil penalty of $4004, see Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(5)(a), (c) (Supp. 2009). As a result of the Department's finding of fraud, Ellsworth was deemed ineligible to receive future benefits for an additional forty-nine weeks. See id. § 35A-4-405(5)(a). Ellsworth appealed to the Board, which affirmed the Department's decision. On appeal, Ellsworth challenges the finding of fraud on the ground that his misrepresentations were unintentional.
As a convenience to the reader, we cite to the current version of the Utah Code because the relevant statutory provisions currently in effect are unchanged from those in effect when Ellsworth filed his claim.
The Board's determination that Ellsworth fraudulently obtained benefits is a question of fact. See generally Kearl v. Department of Employment Sec., 676 P.2d 385, 386-87 (Utah 1983) (analyzing the finding of fraud as a factual question). We will reverse the Board's factual findings "only if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence." Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997). "`Substantial evidence' is that quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion." First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. County Bd. of Equalization, 799 P.2d 1163, 1165 (Utah 1990); accord Viktron/Lika Utah v. Labor Comm'n, 2001 UT App 394, ¶ 13, 38 P.3d 993.
Under the Employment Security Act, a claimant for unemployment benefits is ineligible to receive benefits for each week with respect to which the claimant "willfully made a false statement or representation or knowingly failed to report a material fact to obtain any benefit." Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(5)(a). A claimant who does so will be deemed ineligible to receive future benefits for "13 weeks for the first week the [false] statement or representation was made or fact withheld and six weeks for each week thereafter," up to a total of forty-nine weeks. Id. Upon a finding of fraud, a claimant who receives unemployment benefits must repay any amounts received and a civil penalty in an amount equal to the benefits received. See id. § 35A-4-405(5)(a), (c). Once fraud has been established, neither the Board nor this court has discretion to alter the statutory penalty. See id. § 35A-4-405(5); Diprizio v. Industrial Comm'n, 572 P.2d 679, 680-81 (Utah 1977).
As defined in the Utah Administrative Code, fraud is "a willful misrepresentation or concealment of information for the purpose of obtaining unemployment benefits." Utah Admin. Code R994-406-401(2). To establish a claimant's fraud, the Department must show three elements: materiality, willfulness, and knowledge. See id. R994-406-401(1).
With respect to the first element, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that the Department established materiality. "Materiality is established when a claimant makes false statements or fails to provide accurate information for the purpose of obtaining . . . any benefit payment to which the claimant is not entitled. . . ." Id. R994-406-401(1)(a)(i). Here, the uncontroverted evidence shows that Ellsworth "ma[de] false statements or fail[ed] to provide accurate information for the purpose of obtaining . . . benefit payment[s]." See id. Indeed, Ellsworth falsely stated in both the first and second Utah claims that he had not applied for benefits in another state.
Ellsworth also failed to provide accurate information when he did not answer the related questions of whether he had worked in two or more states and whether all recent employment had been in Utah.
We also reject Ellsworth's argument that his fraud was due to his reliance on the California unemployment insurance representative who advised him to "file his claim in Utah since that was where he had worked for the previous year." Even accepting that fact as true, the representative did not advise Ellsworth to give false information in filing his claim or to accept benefits from both states for the same period of unemployment.
Ellsworth's filing claims containing false statements also establishes the willfulness element. "Willfulness is established when a claimant files claims or other documents containing false statements, responses, or deliberate omissions." Id. R994-406-401(1)(c); see also Martinez v. Industrial Comm'n, 576 P.2d 1295, 1296 (Utah 1978) ("The filing of the claim evidences a purpose or willingness to present a false claim in order to obtain unlawful benefits. . . ."). Here, the record plainly shows that both claims contained false statements and that Ellsworth actually filed the claims.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that the Department established the knowledge element. Knowledge is established when "[a] claimant must have known or should have known the information submitted to the Department was incorrect or that he or she failed to provide [required] information." Utah Admin. Code R994-406-401(1)(b). A claimant has both "[t]he initial and continuing burden" to provide the Department with information regarding the claimant's "eligibility to receive benefits."Baker v. Department of Employment Sec., 564 P.2d 1126, 1127 (Utah 1977). Even assuming that, as Ellsworth argues, he either forgot about the California claim or thought he did not complete it, his error quickly became apparent. Within a few days of filing the first Utah claim, Ellsworth received the California claimant guide and began receiving unemployment benefits from California a few weeks later. After receiving the claimant guide and benefits from California, Ellsworth clearly knew or should have known that his statements in the first Utah claim were false and, under his "continuing burden . . . to establish[ his] eligibility," id., he was required to alert Department officials to the error but did not do so. Moreover, after knowingly receiving the California benefits for several months, Ellsworth knew or should have known that he had filed for benefits from another state when he sought to reopen his case by filing the second Utah claim, yet he failed to provide that information when asked. Thus, there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the Department established that the knowledge element was met.
Ellsworth also contends he had no knowledge of the falsity of his "no" answer to the question, "Have you applied for benefits from railroad or other state?" because he either "pulled [the phone] away from [his] ear to punch the `no' button" after he heard "railroad" without waiting to hear the rest of the question, or he answered "no" prematurely due to his uncontrollable "impulse to complete other people's sentences." Although we agree with Ellsworth that the question could be phrased more clearly, that does not excuse his failure to listen to the question in its entirety before giving his answer, which he certified was truthful and correct.
Substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that the Department established each of the elements of fraud. Therefore, we do not disturb the Board's ruling that Ellsworth's actions were fraudulent and that, as a result, he is required to repay the improperly received benefits and civil penalty.
To the extent that Ellsworth raises any other issues that are not specifically addressed in this decision, we conclude that the issues are inadequately briefed and decline to address them.See generally Utah R. App. P. 24 (detailing briefing requirements); Daniels v. Gamma W. Brachytherapy, LLC, 2009 UT 66, ¶ 52, 221 P.3d 256 (declining to address issues that were inadequately briefed).
Carolyn B. McHugh, Associate Presiding Judge.
WE CONCUR: James Z. Davis, Presiding Judge, William A. Thorne Jr., Judge.