COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/2012. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM A. GOWAN JR. TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED THE DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND ORDERED APPELLANT TO REPAY ASSESSED OVERPAYMENT OF BENEFITS PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST ON THE UNPAID BALANCE.
FOR APPELLANT: BRENDA JACKSON (Pro se).
FOR APPELLEE: ALBERT B. WHITE, LEANNE FRANKLIN BRADY.
LEE, C.J., BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
¶1. Brenda Jackson was employed as a substitute teacher for the Jackson Public Schools Board of Trustees (JPS) from February 7, 2011, to May 27, 2011. Jackson moved to Texas on June 1, 2011, to pursue other employment opportunities.
¶2.On June 2, 2011, Jackson filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES). When it was discovered that Jackson had voluntarily relocated to Texas, MDES disqualified her from receiving any benefits. Additionally, MDES found that Jackson had received an overpayment of $705 for the period of June 11, 2011, to June 25, 2011.
¶3. Jackson appealed the denial of benefits. After a hearing on September 8, 2011, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that since Jackson voluntarily left her employment with JPS, she was not entitled to unemployment benefits. He also found Jackson liable for the $705 in unemployment benefits she had received, including interest of one percent per month on the unpaid balance. Aggrieved, Jackson appealed the ALJ's decision to the MDES Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the findings.
¶4. Jackson subsequently appealed the Board's findings to the Hinds County Circuit Court. On March 12, 2012, the circuit court affirmed the Board's decision. Jackson now appeals to this Court, and finding no error, we affirm the denial of unemployment benefits.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5. Our standard of review of the decision of an administrative agency is limited to a determination of whether the Board's order: " (1) was unsupported by substantial evidence, (2) was arbitrary or capricious, (3) was beyond the power of administrative agency to make, or (4) violated some statutory ...