Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-529 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Mandamus to Review Administrative Action in Arkansas, 11 Ark. L. Rev. 352.

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Labor Law, Employment Security Law, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 424.

Case Notes

Evidence.

The Court of Appeals does not consider additional evidence filed except as ordered by the court and directed to the Board of Review. Jones v. Director, Ark. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 61 Ark. App. 155, 965 S.W.2d 789 (1998).

Appellate court could not grant claimant the relief sought because her argument depended upon facts not in evidence that were presented for the first time in her petition for judicial review; pursuant to subdivision (c)(2)(A), the appellate court was precluded from receiving additional evidence on appeal, nor could it remand for the Arkansas Board of Review to reopen its decision, even on a showing of good cause. Allen v. Dir., Empl. Sec. Dep't., 84 Ark. App. 239, 139 S.W.3d 138 (2003).

Where an owner of a company used an expletive when calling a former employee a liar after she denied methamphetamine use, the employee voluntarily quit with good cause under § 11-10-513 when she left the premises a few minutes later; thus, substantial evidence supported a finding that she was entitled to unemployment benefits. Pocahontas Elecs. v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs., 96 Ark. App. 227, 240 S.W.3d 130 (2006).

Findings of Facts.

The findings of fact made by the Board of Review are conclusive upon judicial review if supported by substantial evidence. Reddick v. Scott, 217 Ark. 38, 228 S.W.2d 1008 (1950); Terry Dairy Prods. Co. v. Cash, 224 Ark. 576, 275 S.W.2d 12 (1955); Shipley Baking Co. v. Stiles, 17 Ark. App. 72, 703 S.W.2d 465 (1986); Edwards v. Stiles, 23 Ark. App. 96, 743 S.W.2d 12 (1988).

Whether the findings of the Board of Review are supported by substantial evidence is a question of law, and the Court of Appeals may reverse a finding of the Board of Review which is not supported by substantial evidence. St. Vincent Infirmary v. Arkansas Employment Sec. Div., 271 Ark. 654, 609 S.W.2d 675 (1980); Edwards v. Stiles, 23 Ark. App. 96, 743 S.W.2d 12 (1988); Cowan v. Director, Ark. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 56 Ark. App. 17, 936 S.W.2d 766 (1997).

The findings of the Board of Review are conclusive on appeal if they are supported by the evidence. The definition of evidence in this context means substantial evidence, and whether the evidence is substantial is a question of law. Murphy v. Everett, 5 Ark. App. 281, 635 S.W.2d 301 (1982).

On appeal, the findings of fact of the board of review are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence; substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Perdrix-Wang v. Director, Emp. Sec. Dep't, 42 Ark. App. 218, 856 S.W.2d 636 (1993).

On review of unemployment compensation cases, the factual findings of the Board of Review are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. Brown v. Director, Emp. Sec. Div., 54 Ark. App. 205, 924 S.W.2d 492 (1996).

Substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant's acts were against her employer's best interests and that she was discharged for misconduct in connection with the work, because the claimant failed to follow routing procedures, and failed to review and edit a document before it was submitted to the director. Weinstein v. Dir., 2013 Ark. App. 374, 428 S.W.3d 560 (2013).

Issues on Appeal.

Discharge in violation of a labor contract was not an issue in a court review and the court's judgment denying unemployment benefits was not res judicata of that issue. Andrews v. Victor Metal Prods. Corp., 237 Ark. 540, 374 S.W.2d 816 (1964).

Where the issues of failure of the claimant to register for employment or his availability for employment were neither raised nor adjudicated prior to appeal to the circuit court from denial of benefits, the issues could not be raised on an appeal from the circuit court's reversal of the denial of benefits. Stover v. Deere, 249 Ark. 334, 461 S.W.2d 393 (1970).

Record of Case.

The director of labor must file a certified copy of the record of the case, including all documents, papers, and a transcript of the testimony, within a reasonable period of time; and a period of 90 days after the filing of the notice of appeal is a reasonable time within which to file the record on appeal. Wortham v. Director of Labor, 31 Ark. App. 175, 790 S.W.2d 909 (1990).

Remand.

When administrative board fails to make finding upon pertinent issue of fact case will be remanded. Reddick v. Scott, 217 Ark. 38, 228 S.W.2d 1008 (1950).

Where testimony indicated that a claimant was receiving periodic payments from some source, but there was no documentary evidence of the source of such payments, it was proper to remand to the Board of Review to take additional evidence on that issue, since the nature and source of the payments must be known in order to make a proper determination in the case. Morris v. Everett, 3 Ark. App. 280A, 625 S.W.2d 551 (1981).

When an administrative agency fails to make a finding upon a pertinent issue of fact, the courts do not decide the question in the first instance; the cause is remanded to the agency so a finding can be made on that issue. Thus, where the Board of Review, in holding that the defendant was liable for overpayments he had received, failed to consider whether the principles of equity and good conscience would be violated by requiring him to repay the benefits, the board's decision would be remanded. Lawrence v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 138, 653 S.W.2d 140 (1983).

Remand ordering the Board of Review enter an award requiring that unemployment benefits be paid to the employee was proper where he was an inmate who was transferred so as to render it impossible for him to continue in the company's employment; further, although subdivision (c)(2)(A) of this section authorized the appellate court to order that additional evidence be taken before the board, it did not issue such a directive. Rankin v. Dir,. Empl. Sec. Dep't, 82 Ark. App. 575, 120 S.W.3d 169 (2003).

Scope of Review.

A reviewing court is required to view the testimony in the light most favorable to the successful party, if there is any rational basis for the board's findings based upon substantial evidence. Rose v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 679, 599 S.W.2d 762 (Ct. App. 1980); Everett v. Jones, 277 Ark. 162, 639 S.W.2d 739 (1982); Farmer v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 23, 648 S.W.2d 513 (1983); Haig v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 255, 650 S.W.2d 593 (1983).

Decisions of the Board of Review are reversible on appeal to the courts only if they are found to be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and without substantial evidence to support them or in cases of fraud or corruption. Willis Johnson Co. v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 795, 601 S.W.2d 890 (Ct. App. 1980).

Even though there was evidence in the record upon which the Board of Review might have reached a different result, the scope of judicial review was limited by this section, and the reviewing court was not privileged to substitute its findings for those of the Board of Review even though the court might have reached a different conclusion had it made the original determination upon the same evidence considered by the board. Stagecoach Motel v. Krause, 267 Ark. 1093, 593 S.W.2d 495 (Ct. App. 1980); Feagin v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 59, 652 S.W.2d 839 (1983); Shipley Baking Co. v. Stiles, 17 Ark. App. 72, 703 S.W.2d 465 (1986).

Finding held not supported by substantial evidence. Victor Indus. Corp. v. Daniels, 1 Ark. App. 6, 611 S.W.2d 794 (1981).

In unemployment compensation cases, the scope of review by the court is governed by the substantial evidence rule. Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequately supporting the conclusion. Haig v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 255, 650 S.W.2d 593 (1983).

Neither the appeal tribunal nor the Board of Review is bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence. Haynes v. Director of Labor, 19 Ark. App. 71, 719 S.W.2d 437 (1986).

On appeal, the findings of fact of the Board of Review are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, i.e., by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; appellate review is limited to determining whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision upon the evidence before it, and in making that determination, the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom are reviewed in the light most favorable to the Board's findings. White v. Director, Ark. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 54 Ark. App. 197, 924 S.W.2d 823 (1996).

Timeliness.

The Court of Appeals has no authority to extend the deadline for filing a petition for review. Wooten v. Daniels, 271 Ark. 131, 607 S.W.2d 96 (1980).

Where employer never received written notice of determination, employer's appeal was timely under this section despite fact that it was filed after the permitted time for filing, since the fact that notice is not received is a circumstance beyond the employer's control. Sprindale Farms v. Daniels, 1 Ark. App. 89, 613 S.W.2d 117 (1981).

Claimant's argument that her appeal was untimely because of concentrated effort to secure employment was not an acceptable defense. Nichols v. Stiles, 11 Ark. App. 212, 668 S.W.2d 554 (1984).

Challenges to an application for unemployment benefits must be made in the first instance in a prompt manner or be lost, unless unmistakably reserved in the original determination. Davis v. Stiles, 287 Ark. 261, 698 S.W.2d 287 (1985), rehearing denied, 287 Ark. 261, 700 S.W.2d 369 (1985).

Claimant's motions for rule on the clerk were denied because the petitions for review were filed outside the twenty-day period provided in subsection (a); the court had no authority to extend the deadline for filing a petition for review, because the time for appeal from administrative agency determinations is a legislative matter. Green v. Director, 50 Ark. App. 208, 901 S.W.2d 860 (1995).

Although subdivision (b)(1) of this section provides that the Director shall file a certified copy of the record, this section does not specify a time period in which this must be done; although sanctions were not applied because there has not been precedent for applying sanctions for simply failing to file the record on appeal within 90 days after the notice of appeal has been filed by a claimant, the appellate court might in the future consider this opinion sufficient advance warning. Brown v. Director, Emp. Sec. Div., 54 Ark. App. 205, 924 S.W.2d 492 (1996).

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); Rogers v. Director of Labor, 27 Ark. App. 128, 767 S.W.2d 319 (1989); Perry v. Gaddy, 48 Ark. App. 128, 891 S.W.2d 73 (1995); Kilpatrick v. Director, Ark. Emp. Sec. Dep't., 55 Ark. App. 193, 934 S.W.2d 232 (1996); Owens v. Director, Ark. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 55 Ark. App. 255, 935 S.W.2d 285 (1996); Smith v. Arkansas Emp. Sec. Dep't, 55 Ark. App. 348, 934 S.W.2d 952 (1996); Wenzl v. Director, 60 Ark. App. 21, 959 S.W.2d 63 (1997); Rouse v. Director of the Ark. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 186 (2012).