Matthew Oseng v. Director, Division of Workforce Services

── Matthew Oseng v. Director, Division of Workforce Services ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 01, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 204 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. E-25-180 Opinion Delivered April 1, 2026 MATTHEW OSENG APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW V. [NO. 2025-BR-00773] DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES REVERSED AND REMANDED APPELLEE CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge Matthew Oseng (Oseng) appeals the decision of the Arkansas Board of Review (the Board) affirming the determination that Oseng was required to repay benefits he previously received in the amount of $2,464. We agree that the Board acted in haste and misstated the factual record developed during the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) hearing; thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Oseng was awarded benefits under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-514(a) (Supp. 2025) on December 28, 2023. The employer filed a timely appeal. On January 2, 2024, the Tribunal reversed and denied Oseng benefits under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-514(b). This resulted in a $2,464 overpayment of benefits to Oseng from October 15, 2023, through February 3, 2024. Following this determination, Oseng filed an appeal to the Board, which was docketed as 2025-BR-00666. The Board dismissed the appeal as untimely, finding Oseng’s untimeliness was not due to circumstances beyond his control. On September 18, 2025, a notice of nonfraud overpayment determination was issued to Oseng, requiring him to repay the benefits he received under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-532 (Supp. 2025), which provides in pertinent part: (b)(1) If the director finds that a person has received an amount as benefits under this chapter to which he or she was not entitled by reasons other than fraud, willful misrepresentation, or willful nondisclosure of facts, the person is liable to repay the amount to the Unemployment Compensation Fund. It was determined that Oseng received benefits to which he was not entitled for reasons other than fraud. Oseng filed a timely notice of appeal to the Tribunal, which conducted a hearing on October 28, 2025, and affirmed the agency’s determination. Again, Oseng, appealed to the Board, which affirmed the Tribunal’s determination that Oseng was required to repay the benefits. In the Board’s order, it was stated that “[Oseng] was not at fault in causing the overpayment of benefits, but he must still show that requiring repayment would be against equity and good conscience. During the Tribunal hearing, [Oseng] offered no evidence as to why repaying the benefits would be against equity and good conscience. [Oseng] declined the opportunity to answer financial questions from the hearing officer about his ability to repay the benefits.” However, upon a review of the transcript from the hearing on October 28, 2025, before the Tribunal hearing officer, Oseng answered specific questions regarding his financial status. 2 The following exchange occurred: H. OFFICER: --and the cause for the overpayment. But what we also do is go over your finances to see if you were required to pay it back if you have the means to pay it back at the moment. So, we can go over that now. So, are you currently employed? CLAIMANT: So, I’m unemployed now. H. OFFICER: Okay. Do you have any members in your household that are currently employed? CLAIMANT: So what does that have to do with – also no, no. H. OFFICER: Okay. Do you have any su