Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys:
James D. Hickman, Sandy, Petitioner Pro Se
Suzan Pixton, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

Before Judges Bench, Billings, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner James D. Hickman seeks judicial review of a decision of the Workforce Appeals Board assessing an overpayment of unemployment benefits and imposing a penalty.

In the agency proceedings and before this court, Hickman has not disputed the factual findings he incorrectly reported that he had not worked during the two weeks ending March 14 and March 21, 1998, and that he did so knowingly. Accordingly, he has no basis for arguing that the fraud overpayment provisions of Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(5) (1997) do not apply to his case, or were not properly applied by the Board. Instead, he seeks to challenge the statutory provisions prescribing an initial waiting week before commencement of benefits and the denial of benefits for the period during which he worked prior to receiving his first paycheck.

Hickman has stated no basis for relief by this court under Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4) (1997). Specifically, he has not demonstrated that the "statute or rule on which the agency action is based, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied," Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(a), or any other basis for judicial relief from the Board's decision. Neither the Board nor this court is empowered to modify, or exempt the petitioner from, the application of Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(5) based upon his disagreement with provisions of the Utah Employment Security Act.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Board.
_________________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge

_________________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge

_________________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge