Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man who was overpaid unemployment benefits doesn’t meet the statutory requirements to receive a waiver of repayment, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has ruled in affirming a review board’s decision.
Z.C. was laid off from his full-time job in 2019 and had exhausted his unemployment insurance benefits by November 2020. At that point, he transitioned to receiving pandemic emergency unemployment compensation (PEUC), federal pandemic unemployment compensation (FPUC) and lost wages assistance (LWA) benefits.
Z.C. completed claim forms but sought guidance from the Indiana Department of Workforce Development about how to treat income from online courses he taught for multiple universities, claiming he was getting conflicting information.
When he reported his wages throughout 2020 and 2021, Z.C. treated wages from the courses as though they were the only courses he would teach for the year and divided his wages by 52 weeks, instead of reporting the specific weeks he had worked under one or more of his teaching contracts.
The department told Z.C. in July 2022 that he didn’t properly report his earnings on multiple weeks and determined he had been overpaid benefits.
Z.C. appealed that determination, but an administrative law judge came to the same conclusion.
He then appealed that decision to the department’s review board, which affirmed the administrative law judge.
The review board’s judgment became final in September 2022, after he decided not to appeal to the Court of Appeals. All told, Z.C. received $39,046 in overpayments.
Separately, in July 2022, Z.C. requested a waiver of his obligation to repay the overpayments, but the department denied the request, determining he didn’t meet the statutory criteria to receive a waiver. The department said Z.C. wasn’t “without fault” for the overpayments.
Z.C. appealed to the administrative law judge, who affirmed the department’s denial.
Z.C. then appealed to the review board, which adopted the administrative law judge’s findings and conclusions and affirmed the denial of his waiver request.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Z.C., appearing pro se, argued he qualifies for an overpayment waiver based on Indiana Code § 22-4-13-1(i), which says liability for repayment can be waived if the benefits were received without fault of the individual, if the benefits were paid because of a department error and if repayment would cause economic hardship.
But the Court of Appeals sided with the review board’s determination that Z.C. isn’t entitled to a repayment waiver.
Z.C. is ineligible for a waiver of his unemployment insurance benefits, the Court of Appeals ruled, because two of his previous employers elected to make payments in lieu of contributions to the state’s benefit fund. That established those universities as reimbursable employers.
The Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion for the PEUC, FPUC and LWA benefits, ruling the review board’s decision was reasonable.
On top of reporting wages incorrectly, the Court of Appeals noted Z.C. had to read and sign an agreement that included the requirement to report his wages.
Z.C. also claimed equitable estoppel against the department based on its call center’s “fiduciary failure” or “misguidance and misinterpretations” of its handbook. Citing DenniStarr Environmental v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 741 N.E.2d 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), he argued courts aren’t prohibited from applying estoppel against the government, only that they are reluctant to do so.
But the Court of Appeals disagreed, finding Z.C. “had access to the correct information.”
Z.C. also argued that because of his diagnosis with two “clinical disorders,” the department should have “eagerly sought to provide confidently accurate information when Z.C. disclosed his mental infirmities.” But the Court of Appeals ruled that issue was waived for failure to make a cogent argument or include citations to the record.
Z.C. also argued he’s eligible for a repayment waiver under the federal CARES Act. But the Court of Appeals again ruled Z.C. waived that argument by failing to make a cogent argument or include citations.
Z.C. also argued he should be eligible because of the department’s “negligence, mismanagement, disorganization, [and] irresponsibility[.]” The department, he said, didn’t review quarterly employment reports quickly enough to discover the misreporting sooner.
But the Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling the department discovered the overpayment and sought repayment within the statutory timeframe of four years from the date of discovery.
“Moreover, Z.C.’s argument that he received no records of his telephone calls with representatives of the Department is unavailing,” the opinion says, noting Z.C. again didn’t support his argument with citations.
Finally, Z.C. argued the department failed to provide him with an exhibit list before the waiver hearing in January 2023. Once again, the Court of Appeals ruled Z.C. waived the argument because he didn’t include citations.
Judge Cale Bradford wrote the opinion. Judges Leanna Weissmann and Patricia Riley concurred.
The case is Z.C. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, 23A-EX-377.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.