Richard Inyang, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-1474

Richard Inyang,
Relator,

vs.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed April 9, 2018
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 35499097-3

Richard B. Inyang. St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., c/o Talx UCM Service, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri (respondent)

Lee B. Nelson, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development,
St. Paul, Minnesota (respondent department)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and
Reilly, Judge.
2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Relator simultaneously received unemployment benefits and income from an
employer during three weeks in 2016. An unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determined that
relator was overpai d benefits for those three weeks because relator committed fraud.
Relator challenges the determination of the ULJ that he committed fraud. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (Walmart) employed relator Richard Inyang
for nearly ten years before discharging him on April 22, 2016. Relator appli ed for
unemployment benefits and established an account with respondent Minnesota Department
of Employment and Economic Development ( DEED). He was determined to have a
weekly benefit amount of $ 367. Relator grieved his discharge, and Walmart agreed to
reinstate him.
Walmart directed relator to work at a St. Paul store while it determined which
manager position to reinstate him. Relator worked 8 hours on July 1, 2016 . One week
later, on July 8, 2016, relator worked 6.82 hours at the St. Paul store. On July 14, 2016,
relator was paid for working on July 1 and July 8. For June 26-July 2, relator had gross
earnings of $138.72. For July 3-9, relator had gross earnings of $118.26. Relator worked
Monday through Friday during the week of July 10 -16. On Jul y 28, relator was paid
$862.74 for week three.
Relator filed continued requests for unemployment benefits on July 5, July 11, and
July 18. When filing each of th ese requests, relator was asked, “Did you work or have a
3
paid holiday during the reporting period listed above?” Each time, relator answered, “No.”
If relator had answered “Yes,” he would have been asked about the hours he had worked
and his gross earnings. If relator had correctly reported the hours he had worked and his
gross earnings, he would have had $69 deducted from his unemployment benefits for week
one and $59 deducted from his unemployment benefits for week two and he would not
have been entitled to any unemployment benefits for week three.
DEED later found that relator’s earnings were not taken into account for those three
weeks of unemployment benefits, causing relator to be overpaid $ 495. DEED also
determined that relator was overpaid due to fraud and imposed the statutory penalty of 40%
of the amount overpaid. The ULJ conducted a de novo hearing and affirmed DEED’s
determinations. Relator filed a request for reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed those
decisions.
Relator appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Relator challenges the ULJ’s finding that he fraudulently obtained unemployment
benefits, arguing that, since his employment with Walmart was not “fully finalized” until
August 2, 2016, he did not commit fraud when he responded “no” on the three
unemployment-benefits requests . This court may modify or reverse an unemployment -
benefits dec ision only if relator’s substantial rights were prejudiced because the ULJ
findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision violates the constitution, exceeds statutory or
jurisdictional authority, is based on unlawful procedure, lack s the support of substant ial
evidence, is arbitrary, or is capricious. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(1)-(6) (2016).
4
Whether an applicant made knowing misrepresentations while requesting benefits
is a question of fact that depends on the credibility of the applicant’s testimony. Burnevik
v. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 367 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Minn. App. 1985). We review the ULJ’s
factual findings “in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb those
findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”
Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).
Moreover, credibility determinations are the ULJ’s exclusive province, and we will not
disturb them on appeal. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , 721 N.W.2d 340, 345 (Minn. App.
2006).
“A continued request for unemployment benefits is a certification by an applicant
. . . that the applicant is unemployed and meets the ongoing eligibility requ irements for
unemployment benefits . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 268.0865 , subd. 1 (2016). “If the applicant
has earnings . . . with respect to any week . . . equal to or in excess of the applicant’s weekly
unemployment benefit amount, the applicant is ineligib le for unemployment benefits for
that week.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 5(a) (2016). “If the applicant has earnings . . . ,
with respect to any week, that is less than the applicant’s weekly unemployment benefit
amount . . . 50 percent of the earnings are deducted from the weekly unemployment benefit
amount.” Id., subd. 5(b) (2016). Applicants who are overpaid benefits must generally
repay the excess amount. Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 1(a) (2016). But when an applicant
5
receives overpayment through fraud,1 “the commissioner must issue a determination of
overpayment penalty assessing a penalty equal to 40 percent of the amount overpaid.” Id.,
subd. 2(a) (2016). An applicant commits fraud if he “is overpaid unemployment benefits
by making a false statement or representation without a good faith belief as to the
correctness of the statement or representation.” Id.
Here, there is no doubt that relator was overpaid unemployment benefits during each
of the relevant three weeks . During his telephone h earing with the ULJ , relator verified
the authenticity of the Walmart payroll records and his unemployment records . T hese
documents prove that , for these three weeks, relator worked for pay and simultaneously
received full unemployment benefits. The issue is whether relator had a good-faith belief
as to the correctness of his representation s on the requests for unemployment benefits .
Relator testified and now argues that he requested unemployment benefits because he
considered himself “not employed” becau se he had yet to be paid and was still going
through the reinstatement process. Relator supports his argument with the fact that as of
August 2, 2016, Walmart had “still not fully finalized my reinstatement process or back to
work process.” The ULJ found that relator’s testimony was “not credible” and that
Walmart’s payroll records were more persuasive.
“We have frequently noted this court will not question a determination of credibility
made by the [ULJ].” Burnevik, 367 N.W.2d at 683. Relator does not cite any authority or

1 In 2017, the legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 268.18 by changing “fraud” to
“misrepresentation.” At the time of relator’s continuing-benefits applications, the statutory
language was “fraud.”
6
fact that would give this court reason to sec ond-guess the ULJ’s determ ination that his
testimony was not credible and that the payroll records kept in the ordinary course of
Walmart’s business were accurate. We defer to the ULJ’s credibility determinations and
therefore conclude that substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s decision that relator was
overpaid unemployment benefits by making false statements without a good-faith belief as
to the correctness of the statements. Therefore, the ULJ did not err by determining that
relator committed fraud.
Affirmed.