Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Andrea Blackman appealed the superior court's denial of her mandate petition concerning unemployment benefits paid between March and August 2020. In late 2022, the Employment Development Department sent her three separate notices: two notices of determination on November 30, 2022, finding her ineligible under Unemployment Insurance Code sections 1252 and 1279 because she had worked for Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group and Western Express Lending, and a notice of overpayment on December 1, 2022. The overpayment notice assessed a $7,134 overpayment and a $2,140.20 penalty for willfully false statements or withheld information, for a total demand of $9,274.20.
At the January 24, 2024 administrative hearing, Blackman testified that she applied for benefits after losing two positions during COVID-19 shutdowns. She said she did not work from March through May, returned to Hanna's in June and Western Express Lending in July, and agreed on May 8, 2020 to receive compensation funded by a Paycheck Protection Program loan. She also said she emailed EDD that she could no longer receive benefits, disputed some reported wages, and stated that money continued to be disbursed to her benefits card.
The administrative law judge issued a decision on February 2, 2024 affirming EDD's determinations, while crediting Blackman with $4,623 in repayment and finding $2,511 of the overpayment still outstanding plus the penalty. The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board issued its final decision on April 15, 2024, adopting amended findings and reasons. Blackman then sought administrative mandate. She filed her superior court trial brief on October 21, almost one month after the September 26 deadline, and attached compensation records from Hanna's. The UIAB filed a timely brief opposing the petition. The court advanced the trial date from March 23, 2026 to November 3, 2025, denied her petition after a hearing, and she timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal first held that the appeal failed on procedural grounds. Blackman supplied no legal authority for her arguments and no record citations supporting her factual assertions, contrary to California Rules of Court, rule 8.204. She also proceeded without a record of the oral proceedings below. With no factual error apparent on the face of the record, the court concluded that she could not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.
The court nevertheless addressed the merits. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, review concerns jurisdiction, a fair trial, and prejudicial abuse of discretion, including whether findings support the decision and evidence supports the findings. Blackman had not introduced wage records at the administrative hearing to refute her employers' reports. Because she neither showed that those records were unavailable at the hearing nor argued that the administrative law judge improperly excluded them, the superior court properly declined to consider evidence submitted only after the Board's decision.
The penalty challenge also failed. Blackman identified no authority requiring documentary evidence of intentional wrongdoing. The court instead relied on her admission that she continued receiving unemployment compensation after returning to work and knew doing so was unethical. It separately denied her appellate motion to submit new wage evidence because the wage evidence she sought to submit did not meet the criteria for post-judgment consideration. The judgment was affirmed, and the parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An unemployment-benefits appellant must support legal arguments with authority and factual assertions with record citations, or the appellate court may treat the claims as forfeited or waived.
- Proceeding without a record of the oral proceedings below defeated Blackman's sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge because no factual error was apparent on the face of the available record.
- Wage records not presented at the administrative hearing could not be added on mandate review without a showing that they were then unavailable or had been improperly excluded.
- The court rejected the argument that a false-statement penalty required documentary proof, relying instead on Blackman's own admission that she continued receiving benefits after resuming work and knew it was unethical.
- The appellate court denied the separate new-evidence motion because the wage evidence did not meet the criteria for post-judgment consideration, and affirmed the judgment with each party bearing its own costs on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how administrative-record limits and appellate briefing requirements can independently determine an unemployment overpayment appeal. Even though the court reached the substance, Blackman's late wage documentation did not overcome the requirement to present available evidence at the agency hearing or justify its later admission.
The ruling also distinguishes a demand for documentary proof from the evidence actually before the agency: the court found Blackman's own testimony sufficient to reject her penalty argument. Its affirmance left the administrative overpayment and penalty determinations intact, subject to the repayment credit and accounting reconciliation described in the administrative record.