The
SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding, inter alia:
- Order to repay COVID benefits reversed (again)
Summary
follows:
PALMER
v. DEP’T OF LABOR & REGULATION, 2024 S.D. 31: This is another case where
the SD DOL sought repayment of alleged overpayments made in connection with “Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance (PUA)”
The
ALJ ordered the recipient to repay $8,664 plus a penalty assessment for making
a fraudulent misrepresentation. The
ALJ’s decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court. The SD Supreme Court reversed and
remanded. The 1st and last
paragraphs of the opinion are set forth here:
[¶1.] An administrative law
judge (ALJ) determined that Melissa Palmer willfully misrepresented facts to
receive pandemic unemployment assistance benefits and ordered that she repay
the benefits and be assessed a mandatory penalty under SDCL 61-6-39. The
circuit court affirmed the ALJ’s decision, and on appeal to this Court, Palmer
asserts that the ALJ erred in finding that she willfully misrepresented facts
to obtain those benefits and in concluding that she was therefore subject to a
penalty. We reverse and remand.
and
[¶36.] Although the ALJ
issued a specific ruling that Palmer was at fault in receiving the overpayment
of PUA benefits, we cannot ascertain whether this ruling was based solely on
the ALJ’s determination that Palmer’s inaccurate reporting was done willfully.
Having concluded that the ALJ erred in its determination that Palmer willfully
misrepresented facts to obtain PUA benefits, we remand for the ALJ to either
clarify or reconsider the “at fault” determination and whether Palmer is
eligible for a waiver under the governing rules. See SDCL 61-6-42 (providing
that the Department may waive the right of recovery of benefits under certain
conditions, including that the claimant was not at fault, according to rules
promulgated pursuant to chapter 1-26); ARSD 47:06:04:22 (setting forth the
conditions that must exist before the department may waive overpayment).
The
Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. NOTE:
This another case in which newly-appointed federal judge Eric Schulte
served as pro bono counsel for the individual sued for return of COVID
payments.
This
decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
