Board of Review Decision 334-FHK6-VMT6

The claimant had shown, in a separate decision, that the overpaid benefits at issue were not due to her fault. As paystubs from her current employment show that her necessary and ordinary living expenses exceed her monthly net income, she is entitled to a waiver of the remaining overpaid benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 69(c).

Board of Review
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Issue ID: 334-FHK6-VMT6

Board of Review Decision

Introduction and Procedural History of this Appeal 

The claimant appeals a decision by a review examiner of the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) to deny a waiver of overpaid unemployment benefits. We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and reverse. 

The claimant filed a claim for benefits, effective January 12, 2020, and was initially awarded benefits. However, the DUA subsequently determined that these benefits were overpaid (overpayment determination). She applied for a waiver of recovery of the overpayment, which the DUA denied in a determination issued on November 26, 2024 (waiver determination). The claimant appealed the waiver determination to the DUA hearings department. Following a hearing on the merits attended by the claimant, the review examiner affirmed the agency’s waiver determination and denied the claimant’s request for an overpayment waiver in a decision rendered on November 1, 2025. We accepted the claimant’s application for review. 

The overpayment waiver was denied after the review examiner concluded that the claimant was not eligible for a waiver under G.L. c. 151A, § 69(c), because the agency had concluded that the claimant was at fault for the overpayment. After considering the recorded testimony and evidence from the hearing, the review examiner’s decision, and the claimant’s appeal, we remanded the case to the review examiner to obtain additional evidence of the claimant’s net earnings and any impact the overpayment had on her receipt of other benefits. The claimant attended the remand hearing. Thereafter, the review examiner issued her consolidated findings of fact. Our decision is based upon our review of the entire record.

The issue before the Board is whether the review examiner’s decision, which denied the claimant an overpayment waiver because she was determined to be at fault for the overpayment, is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law.

Findings of Fact

The review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact are set forth below in their entirety:

1. The claimant filed an application for unemployment benefits (UI) with an effective date of March 14, 2021. 
2. Benefits received by the claimant were later determined to have been overpaid as a result of fault or fraud. 
3. The claimant was notified of the overpayment and filed a request for overpayment waiver. 
4. On November 26, 2021, the claimant was issued a Notice of Disqualification, Issue ID # 0084 3976 80-01, denying her request for an overpayment waiver due to fault or fraud. The claimant appealed the determination. 
5. On April 24, 2023, the claimant attended a hearing on a fault or fraud issue, Issue ID # 0076 5623 02-02, arising from an appeal of a Notice of Disqualification issued on April 29, 2022. 
6. On May 5, 2023, an appeal hearing decision was issued on Issue ID # 0076 5623 02-02 reversing the finding of fault or fraud. 
7. The claimant used the UI benefits, which have now been determined to be overpaid, for her mortgage, utilities, and daily living expenses. 
8. The claimant received food stamp benefits from the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) in the amount of $194.00 per month during the months of January 2020, February 2020, March 2020, April 2020, and May 2020. 
9. The claimant is not married and lives with her boyfriend, who is unemployed. 
10. The claimant currently works full-time as a medical receptionist for a neurology facility earning $21.00 per hour and receiving $840.00 per week in gross pay. 
11. The claimant is paid bi-weekly. 
12. The claimant has a paystub for the pay date of December 10, 2025, showing net income of $1,252.65. 
13. The claimant has a paystub for the pay date of December 24, 2025, showing net income of $1,296.30. 
14. The claimant owns a 2017 Toyota Corolla which has a vehicle loan balance of approximately $6,000.00. 
15. The claimant has a checking account with an approximate balance of $1,000.00.
16. The claimant does not have a savings account.
17. The claimant’s monthly expenses are as follows: 
    1. Mortgage (includes taxes and insurance)      $ 783.00 
    2. Utilities                                                            $ 500.00 
    3. Groceries                                                         $ 649.50 
    4. Clothing                                                           $ 50.00
    5. Cell Phone                                                       $ 141.00
    6. Internet                                                           $ 75.00 
    7. Streaming services                                          $ 60.00 
    8. Credit cards                                                     $ 50.00 
    9. Life insurance                                                  $ 18.00 
    10. Car Payment                                                   $ 279.00 
    11. Car Insurance                                                  $ 113.00 
    12. Gas for Car                                                      $ 100.00 

 Total $2,818.50

Ruling of the Board

In accordance with our statutory obligation, we review the record and the decision made by the review examiner to determine: (1) whether the findings are supported by substantial and credible evidence; and (2) whether the review examiner’s conclusion is free from error of law. After such review, the Board adopts the review examiner’s findings of fact except as follows. There appears to be a typographical error in Consolidated Finding # 4, which states that the Notice of Overpayment Waiver Determination was issued on November 26, 2021. As the determination discussed in that finding was issued on November 26, 2024, we believe that the review examiner intended to find that the determination was issued on that date. In adopting the remaining findings, we deem them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. However, as discussed more fully below, we reject the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant is not entitled to an overpayment waiver.

The claimant’s eligibility for a waiver is governed by G. L. c. 151A, § 69(c), which provides, in relevant part, as follows: 

The commissioner may waive recovery of an overpayment made to any individual, who, in the judgment of the commissioner, is without fault and where, in the judgment of the commissioner such recovery would defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized or would be against equity and good conscience. 

In her decision, the review examiner denied a waiver based upon an earlier DUA determination that the overpayment was due to the claimant’s fault. However, at the time that she issued her initial decision, the review examiner was unaware that the fault determination had been reversed in a decision issued on May 3, 2023. Consolidated Finding # 6. As the claimant was ultimately found not to be at fault for the overpayment at issue, we turn next to whether she has shown that she is otherwise eligible for a waiver because the recovery of the overpaid benefits would defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized or would be against equity and good conscience. 

We first consider whether the recovery of the overpaid benefits would be against equity and good conscience. Relevant to this inquiry, 403 CMR 6.03 provides as follows:

Against equity and good conscience means that recovery of an overpayment will be considered inequitable if an overpaid claimant, by reason of the overpayment, relinquished a valuable right or changed his or her position for the worse. In reaching such a decision, the overpaid claimant’s financial circumstances are irrelevant.

At the initial hearing, the claimant asserted that her SNAP benefits were reduced as a result of her receipt of the now-overpaid unemployment benefits. Documentation from the DTA confirms that the claimant received benefits between January and May, 2020. Consolidated Finding # 8. However, there is nothing in this documentation, which was admitted as part of Remand Exhibit 6, showing that the DTA reduced or ceased paying the claimant benefits because of her receipt unemployment insurance benefits. As such, the evidence does not show that the waiver of the overpayment at issue would be against equity and good conscience within the meaning of 430 CMR 6.03.

We next consider whether recovery of the now overpaid benefits would “defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized,” or, in other words, whether the recovery would deprive the claimant of income required for ordinary and necessary living expenses. 430 CMR 6.03. When making such a determination, the agency is required to use a claimant’s net monthly income. 

On remand, the claimant submitted paystubs from her current work as medical receptionist, showing that her net earnings during the two bi-weekly pay periods totaled $2,548.95 ($1,252.65 + $1,296.30). Dividing this amount by four results an average net weekly wage of $637.24. We multiply the claimant’s net weekly earnings by 4.3, which is the average number of weeks per month, to obtain her net monthly income. In this case, the evidence provided shows the claimant’s net monthly income is approximately $2,740.13. 

Based on the information before us, the claimant’s ordinary and necessary household expenses equal approximately $2,818.50 a month. Consolidated Finding # 17. Inasmuch as the information the claimant provided shows that her ordinary and necessary household expenses exceed her net monthly income, she has shown that recovery of an overpayment would defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized, as meant under 430 CMR 6.03.

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that recovery of the overpaid benefits shall be waived because the claimant was determined not to be at fault for the overpayment and recovery of the now overpaid benefits would defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized within the meaning of G.L. c. 151A, § 69(c). 

The review examiner’s decision is reversed. Recovery of any remaining overpaid benefits balance is waived. 

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – February 4, 2026

1. Remand Exhibit 6, while not explicitly incorporated into the review examiner’s findings, is part of the unchallenged evidence introduced at the hearing and placed in the record, and it is thus properly referred to in our decision today. See Bleich v. Maimonides School, 447 Mass. 38, 40 (2006); Allen of Michigan, Inc. v. Deputy Dir. of Department of Employment and Training, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 370, 371 (2005).

Charlene A Stawicki, Esquire
Member

Michael J. Albano
Member

Any further appeal would further appeal further appeal would be to a Massachusetts State District Court.
(See Section 42, Chapter 151A, General Laws, Enclosed)

The last day to appeal this decision to a Massachusetts District Court is thirty days from the mail date on the first page of this decision. If that thirtieth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the last day to appeal this decision is the business day next following the thirtieth day.

Visit this page to locate the nearest Massachusetts District Court.

Please be advised that fees for services rendered by an attorney or agent to a claimant in connection with an appeal to the Board of Review are not payable unless submitted to the Board of Review for approval, under G.L. c. 151A, § 37.

LSW/rh