AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Respondent applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits from March 2020 through September 2020. Nearly two years after the final payment, the Petitioner issued a notice of determination to the Respondent, claiming an overpayment of benefits during that period and requesting information on the Respondent's employment and wages. The Respondent appealed this determination, arguing that she had received only the benefits for which she was eligible and had not received the payments listed by the Petitioner. The Respondent contended that the claim of overpayment was due to an error (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): Found that the Respondent failed to establish she had submitted the required documentation requested by the Petitioner and had no good cause for failing to do so. The Respondent appealed this decision (para 5).
• Secretary of the Department of Workforce Solutions: Summarily affirmed the decision of the ALJ. The Respondent then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the district court (para 5).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Reversed the Secretary’s decision, holding that the Petitioner’s notice was barred by the statute of limitations under NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-4(H) (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the district court erred in reversing the Secretary’s determination, contending that the notice of determination was a new determination on the issue of the Respondent’s possible failure to report all wages earned, thus not outside the statute of limitations (para 8).
• Respondent: Contended that she received only the benefits for which she was eligible, never received the payments listed by the Petitioner, and believed the claim of overpayment was due to error. Additionally, argued that the statute of limitations barred the Petitioner’s action in submitting the August 2022 notice of determination (paras 4, 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Petitioner’s notice of determination was a reconsideration of unemployment benefits under Section 51-1-4(H) or a new determination of benefits, and thus not outside the statute of limitations (para 9).
• Whether the Secretary’s decision was supported by substantial evidence (para 11).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision and reversed the Secretary’s determination, holding that the Department’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and its redetermination of benefits under Section 51-1-4(H) fell outside the statute of limitations (para 14).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judge Kristina Bogardus, Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, and Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, conducted a review of the administrative order and determined that the district court did not err in its appeal. The Court disagreed with the Petitioner’s argument, holding that the notice of determination was indeed a reconsideration of unemployment benefits under Section 51-1-4(H) and thus barred by the statute of limitations. The Court also found that the Secretary’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as the Petitioner failed to provide adequate evidence to support its claim of overpayment and did not prove that the Respondent had failed to report her wages accurately. The Court affirmed the district court’s decision based on the lack of substantial evidence and the application of the statute of limitations (paras 7-14).