Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-522 (2026)
Claims — Determination
-
In General.
-
- A monetary determination upon a claim filed pursuant to § 11-10-521(a) shall be made promptly by the Director of the Division of Workforce Services and shall include total wage credits as reported paid by each employer during the claimant's base period and the identity of each base-period employer.
-
- For a claimant who meets the wage requirements of § 11-10-507(5), this notice shall include the beginning date of his or her benefit year, his or her basic weekly benefit amount, and the maximum amount of benefits that may be paid to him or her during the benefit year.
- For a claimant who does not meet the wage requirements of § 11-10-507(5), the notice of monetary determination shall include the reason for such determination.
- A nonmonetary determination of a claimant's right to waiting period credit or benefits shall be made under §§ 11-10-507 — 11-10-519 promptly upon his or her timely claiming such credit or benefits.
-
- Combination of Claim. Whenever any claim involves the same issue for more than one (1) claimant, the cases will be combined for the purpose of a hearing if a request to do so is received. If the request is made by any interested party, the director shall refer those cases to a hearing examiner designated by the Board of Review.
- Finality. The decision shall include the reason for any denial and shall be deemed to be final unless within twenty (20) days after the mailing of notice to an interested party's last known address, or in the absence of mailing, within twenty (20) days after the delivery of notice, an appeal is filed with the board or notice is entered by that body.
-
Notice of Determinations.
-
- Notice of any monetary determination upon an initial claim shall be promptly given to the claimant, by delivery or by mailing the notice to his or her last known address.
- A notice of the filing of an initial claim, together with a request for pertinent information concerning claimant's status, shall be promptly mailed to each employer in the base period other than the employer known to the claimant as his or her last employer if the charges to the base-period employer could be affected by benefits paid.
-
- Notice of a nonmonetary determination made pursuant to subdivision (a)(2) of this section shall be promptly given to the claimant by delivery or by mailing the notice to his or her last known address.
- Effective January 1, 1998, a notice of this nonmonetary determination shall be promptly mailed to the last employer.
-
-
Monetary Redeterminations.
- The director may reconsider a monetary determination when he or she finds that an error in computation or identity has occurred in connection therewith or that base-period wage credits for the claimant had not been used in the original monetary determination.
- No reconsideration may be made after one (1) year from the date of the original monetary determination.
- If the amount of benefits is increased upon the reconsideration, an appeal solely with respect to the matters involved in the increase may be filed in the manner and subject to the limitations provided in §§ 11-10-523 — 11-10-530.
- If the amount of benefits is decreased upon the reconsideration, the matters involved in the decrease shall be subject to review in connection with an appeal by claimant from any determination upon a subsequent claim for benefits that may be affected in amount or duration by the reconsideration.
- In the event that an appeal involving an original monetary determination is pending as of the date that a redetermination is issued, the appeal, unless withdrawn, shall be treated as an appeal from such redetermination.
- Written notice of a monetary redetermination shall be given in the same manner and to the same parties as provided in subdivision (d)(1) of this section.
-
Nonmonetary Redeterminations.
-
- Upon receipt of new evidence, the director may reconsider a nonmonetary determination within three (3) years from the date of the original monetary determination.
- However, if benefits have been awarded or denied on the basis of a misrepresentation of a material fact, the director may reconsider the nonmonetary determination within one (1) year of the date that the misrepresentation became known to him or her.
- In the event that an appeal involving an original nonmonetary determination is pending as of the date that a redetermination is issued, the appeal, unless withdrawn, shall be treated as an appeal from such redetermination.
- Written notice of a nonmonetary redetermination shall be given in the same manner and to the same parties as provided in subdivision (d)(2) of this section.
-
History. Acts 1941, No. 391, § 6; 1943, No. 138, §§ 1, 2; 1949, No. 155, §§ 6, 7; 1953, No. 162, §§ 4-6; 1963, No. 93, § 7; 1971, No. 35, § 10; 1973, No. 329, § 9; 1975, No. 609, § 3; 1977, No. 366, § 8; 1983, No. 482, § 37; A.S.A. 1947, § 81-1107; Acts 1991, No. 100, § 29; 1997, No. 234, § 14; 2005, No. 902, § 6; 2007, No. 490, § 7; 2009, No. 653, § 5; 2019, No. 910, § 252.
Amendments. The 2019 amendment substituted “Director of the Division of Workforce Services” for “Director of the Department of Workforce Services” in (a)(1)(A).
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
Rules of Evidence in Administrative Proceedings, 15 Ark. L. Rev. 138.
Case Notes
Determinations.
Both monetary and nonmonetary determinations must be made in the first instance in order to avoid piecemeal litigation of claims. Davis v. Stiles, 287 Ark. 261, 700 S.W.2d 369 (1985).
Although subdivisions (a)(1) and (2) divide the monetary and nonmonetary determinations into separate findings, they do not require bifurcated proceedings on each issue. Davis v. Stiles, 287 Ark. 261, 700 S.W.2d 369 (1985).
The fact that the monetary and nonmonetary determinations are separate findings under this section does not lead to the conclusion that the Employment Security Division can secure a finding of monetary ineligibility, stop the proceedings at that point while the claimant appeals, and then upon a reversal challenge eligibility of the claimant on other grounds, forcing a second appeal by the claimant; the claimant's appeal should be able to encompass all challenges the first time. Davis v. Stiles, 287 Ark. 261, 700 S.W.2d 369 (1985).
The nonmonetary determination must at least be unmistakably reserved in the original determination, but this does not allow the Employment Security Division to make a practice of routinely stating for the record that the determination is reserved until the monetary eligibility is settled on appeal; such a reservation must be in good faith and for an unavoidable reason which can be demonstrated at the time of the reservation. Davis v. Stiles, 287 Ark. 261, 700 S.W.2d 369 (1985).
Notice.
Employer who was notified by employment office that former employee had been denied benefits, since she had voluntarily quit employment, was entitled to notice from employment office when it decided to pay benefits to employee as result of redetermination. Call v. Luten, 219 Ark. 640, 244 S.W.2d 130 (1951).
Employer is entitled to notice of commissioner's determination that period of disqualification of employee has passed so that employee may resort to administrative remedies regardless as to whether employer has a meritorious defense. Cash v. Rocket Mfg. Co., 223 Ark. 561, 267 S.W.2d 318 (1954).
Where a nonresident unemployment compensation claimant did not receive notice of her benefits hearing until after the date scheduled for her hearing, the claimant was not given a reasonable opportunity to present her testimony or evidence, and since it appeared from the record that this was not due to any fault on claimant's part, due process required that the proceeding be remanded for a hearing. Roberts v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 49, 648 S.W.2d 504 (1983).
Unemployment benefits board of review fulfilled its legal obligation of providing notice to a claimant's correct address, and as all other correspondence and notifications sent by the board had successfully reached that address, the claimant's assertion that he never received a notice advising him that an award of benefits had been reversed failed. Worden v. Director, Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 579 (2013).
Overpayment.
Where the evidence showed that claimant was without fault in being overpaid in unemployment benefits and that he was financially troubled, claimant was not required to repay the money and the disputed amount could not be deducted from future benefits. Giles v. Director of Labor, 2 Ark. App. 301, 621 S.W.2d 10 (1981).
Pursuant to the evidence, the agency was estopped to recover overpayment to claimant. Wells v. Everett, 5 Ark. App. 303, 635 S.W.2d 294 (1982).
Cited: Andrews v. Victor Metal Prods. Corp., 241 Ark. 889, 411 S.W.2d 515 (1967); Garrett v. Cline, 257 Ark. 829, 520 S.W.2d 281 (1975); Harris v. Daniels, 263 Ark. 897, 567 S.W.2d 954 (1978); Bradshaw v. Daniels, 268 Ark. 716, 595 S.W.2d 254 (Ct. App. 1980); Hodnett v. Daniels, 271 Ark. 479, 609 S.W.2d 122 (1980); Duvall v. Daniels, 1 Ark. App. 50, 613 S.W.2d 116 (1981); Massey v. Barnes, 1 Ark. App. 329, 615 S.W.2d 398 (1981); Taylor v. Everett, 2 Ark. App. 181, 617 S.W.2d 864 (1981); Rogers v. Daniels, 2 Ark. App. 312, 621 S.W.2d 227 (1981); Terry v. Director of Labor, 3 Ark. App. 197, 623 S.W.2d 857 (1981); Hamby v. Everett, 4 Ark. App. 52, 627 S.W.2d 266 (1982); Osterhout v. Everett, 6 Ark. App. 216, 639 S.W.2d 539, 36 A.L.R.4th 392 (1982); Woodus v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 111, 648 S.W.2d 528 (1983); Hirschy v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 174, 649 S.W.2d 412 (1983); Linscott v. Director of Labor, 9 Ark. App. 103, 653 S.W.2d 150 (1983); Jacks v. Stiles, 19 Ark. App. 129, 717 S.W.2d 828 (1986).