Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 228 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. E12-707 CAROLYN HOWISON Opinion Delivered April 10, 2013 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. BOARD OF REVIEW [NO. 2012-BR-01942] DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES and BELK REMANDED FOR FURTHER APPELLEES FINDINGS BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge The issue is whether we should reverse the Board of Review’s decision that denied Carolyn Howison unemployment benefits because she voluntarily left work without good cause to do so. We cannot, on the record before us, adequately review the Board’s decision to deny Howison’s claim. We therefore remand the case to the Board. Howison exhausted her unemployment benefits under Arkansas law based on a claim she made related to previous employment with an unnamed employer. When those benefits ended, she received extended benefits under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991. While receiving the extended benefits, Howison began part-time work for Belk. Three months later, she left that part-time job to start working for more pay at a part-time position with Casey Eye Care. The Department of Workforce Services then stopped her benefits, citing Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513 (Repl. 2012). The Department ruled that Howison had voluntarily left her last part-time work without good cause, so she must be
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 228 denied benefits. Howison’s appeals to the Appeal Tribunal and the Board of Review were unsuccessful. She then appealed to this court. Howison again contends that she was mistakenly denied benefits. We cannot adequately review her appeal now because the record is unclear on material points—like whether she is still eligible for extended benefits based on her prior full-time employment with an employer whose name is never mentioned in the record. Nor do we know whether she was still “unemployed,” as that term is used under Arkansas’s unemployment-compensation law, when the Department issued its April 2012 denial that disqualified Howison for benefits beginning 26 March 2012. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 11-10-503(a) and 11-10-214(a) (Repl. 2012); see also Stiles v. Coit, 285 Ark. 212, 686 S.W.2d 405 (1985). Because we lack material information needed to decide this appeal, we remand to the Board so it may provide adequate and complete findings on all elements essential to the denial of Howison’s claim. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Dir. of Ark. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 88 Ark. App. 36, 36–39, 194 S.W.3d 790, 794 (2004). Remanded for further findings. WYNNE and GRUBER, JJ., agree. Carolyn Howison, pro se appellant. Phyllis Edwards, Associate General Counsel for Artee Williams, Director, Dep’t of Workforce Servs., for appellee. 2
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.