C.E., Appellant-Petitioner v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] C.E., an Indianapolis barber, underreported his weekly income to the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (DWD) for more than a year. After receiving roughly $25,000 in overpaid unemployment benefits, C.E. asked the DWD to waive his statutory liability for repaying the funds. The DWD denied C.E.’s request, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed that decision. The DWD Review Board then affirmed the ALJ's decision, finding C.E. was not without fault for the overpayments, a statutory bar for a liability waiver.

[2] C.E. appeals, claiming the Review Board unreasonably found him not without fault for the overpayments. According to C.E., the undisputed evidence showed that fault lay with his employer, who allegedly instructed C.E. to report his net earnings, rather than gross earnings, to the DWD. But other evidence showed that C.E. underreported even his net earnings and, for certain periods, falsely denied working at all. From this, the Review Board could reasonably conclude that C.E. was not without fault for the overpayment in unemployment benefits. We therefore affirm.

Facts

[3] In 2020 and 2021, C.E. received a combination of state Unemployment Insurance (UI), federal Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), and Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits. He did so by submitting to the DWD weekly vouchers on which he reported his employment status and income, among other things.

[4] On the unemployment vouchers C.E. submitted for the weeks between June 14, 2020, and March 20, 2021 (Period 1), he reported he did not work and earned $0 each week. On the vouchers he submitted for the weeks between March 21 and July 31, 2021 (Period 2), C.E. reported working for Red's Classic Barbershop Co. and earning $40 each week. At the end of each voucher, C.E. affirmed under the penalties for perjury that the information he reported was true. He also certified that he had “reported any and all work, earnings, and self-employment activity for th[at] week, even though [he] may not have yet been paid.” See, e.g., Exhs. Vol. II, p. 16.

[5] In 2023, the DWD determined that C.E. earned income he did not report on the unemployment vouchers he submitted for certain weeks during Periods 1 and 2. As a result, he was overpaid a total of $25,014 in unemployment benefits for those weeks. When the DWD notified C.E. of the overpayments and that he was statutorily liable for repaying the funds, C.E. requested a statutory waiver of liability, asserting he was without fault for the overpayments.

[6] In 2025, the DWD denied C.E.’s liability waiver request, finding he was not without fault for the overpayments because he underreported his income during the weeks in question. C.E. appealed this denial to an ALJ, who conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matter. At the hearing, C.E. testified that the owner of Red's Classic Barbershop, Michael Ridgway, guided him in completing his weekly unemployment vouchers and specifically instructed him to report his net earnings, rather than gross earnings, thereon. According to C.E., Ridgway's erroneous instructions are what resulted in him underreporting his income and the overpayment of unemployment benefits.

[7] The DWD offered into evidence C.E.’s unemployment vouchers as well as certain payroll records from Red's Classic Barbershop for Periods 1 and 2. The payroll records showed that, during Period 1, C.E.’s biweekly gross earnings ranged from $409 to $966, and his biweekly net earnings ranged from $209 to $670. Similarly, the payroll records showed that, during Period 2, C.E.’s biweekly gross earnings ranged from $611 to $1,005, and his biweekly net earnings ranged from $418 to $668.

[8] The ALJ affirmed the DWD's denial of C.E.’s liability waiver request, specifically finding that C.E. was “not without fault” for the overpayment of unemployment benefits. Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 8. C.E. then appealed to the Review Board, which affirmed the ALJ's decision, adopting its findings of fact and conclusions of law as its own. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[9] By statute, a recipient of UI, PEUC, and FPUC benefits is generally liable for repaying any overpayment of benefits they receive. Ind. Code § 22-4-13-1(b) (UI) (2024); 15 U.S.C. § 9025(e)(2) (PEUC) (2020); 15 U.S.C. § 9023(f)(2) (2020) (FPUC). But liability for repayment may be waived upon request if the recipient was “without fault” for the overpayment. Ind. Code § 22-4-13-1(i) (2024) (UI); 15 U.S.C. § 9025(e)(2) (PEUC) (2020); 15 U.S.C. § 9023(f)(2) (2020) (FPUC).

[10] C.E. challenges the Review Board's finding that he was not without fault for the overpayment of UI, PEUC, and FPUC benefits. We review such findings of “ultimate fact” for “reasonableness.” Recker v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 958 N.E.2d 1136, 1139 (Ind. 2011). That is, we “ensure the [Review] Board has drawn a reasonable inference in light of its findings on the basic, underlying facts.” Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 960 N.E.2d 118, 122 (Ind. 2012). The Review Board's decision will be reversed only if “the logic of the inference is faulty.” Id. at 123 (citation omitted).

[11] C.E. claims the Review Board unreasonably found him not without fault for the overpayment of unemployment benefits because his undisputed testimony at the ALJ hearing was that his employer instructed him to report his net earnings, rather than gross earnings, on his unemployment vouchers. We note that the Review Board was not required to credit C.E.’s testimony about his employer's instructions. Norris v. Norris, 275 N.E.3d 505, 510 (Ind. 2026) (“[F]actfinders are not required to believe a witness's testimony even when it is uncontradicted.”). But assuming C.E. testified truthfully, the evidence showed that C.E. failed to follow his employer's instructions or even come close.

[12] The payroll records from Red's Classic Barbershop showed that C.E.’s biweekly net earnings ranged from $209 to $670 during Period 1 and from $418 to $668 during Period 2. Yet, C.E. reported not working and earning $0 on each weekly unemployment voucher he submitted during Period 1, and he reported earning only $40 on each weekly unemployment voucher he submitted during Period 2. From this evidence, the Review Board could reasonably infer that C.E. was not without fault for the overpayment in unemployment benefits during these periods, regardless of his employer's instructions.

[13] As part of a related argument, C.E. emphasizes that Indiana Code § 22-4-13-1(i) was amended after he filed his liability waiver request but before the ALJ hearing thereon. See P.L. 200-2025, Sec. 8 (effective July 1, 2025). He also observes that the ALJ quoted the amended version of the statute in its written decision, which the Review Board adopted as its own. Both versions of the statute condition a waiver of repayment liability, in part, on the recipient being “without fault” for the overpayment of UI benefits. Ind. Code § 22-4-13-1(i) (2024); Ind. Code § 22-4-13-1(i) (2025). But the amended version adds that fault is determined “regardless of intent.” Ind. Code § 22-4-13-1(i) (2025).

[14] C.E. claims the amended version of the statute does not apply retroactively to his liability waiver request. But based on the amendment, he contends the preamendment version of the statute required that he specifically intend to cause an overpayment in benefits in order to be found not without fault for the overpayment. We need not decide either of these issues, however, because the Review Board could reasonably find that C.E. specifically intended to cause an overpayment in UI benefits based on the evidence discussed above. In other words, even if we assume a requirement of specific intent, C.E.’s claim still fails.

[15] Affirmed.

Weissmann, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.