ÿWPCè 4# èUNó %A 0GGU:Žw@È4+B3u B}šU@šeÚ 0cÛ 0J>ƈ 0TN 0^¢ AQ 0DQ 0h• 0rý 0|o 0†ë 0q 1u 0dv 0@Ú D3 D/M B| U>™ U*× B) DC* AMm ݺ v~—vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLLÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular §D¨©gªU«D¬D­D®D¯Ó€°äzz!Ã9 Z3|x°C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT d ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT(;3,È$¢¢Ý ƒ'\!ÝÔ€XMéXXXÔÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 'ÿÿdxd**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd$/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€-ÔÓ  ÓÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€-XÔó óÌò òÔ€-¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€-XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€-ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€MéXXdædÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌJAMES€P.€MITCHELL,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€œ€Madison›€Chancery€No.€48842Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9510„CH„00230̜ـÙßR€01/A1-j|bù¬â `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJAMES€DAVENPORT,€Commissionerà à)Ìof€the€Department€of€Employmentà à)ÌSecurity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee;à à)ÌNOMA€OUTDOOR€PRODUCTS,à àà à)ÌINC.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€MADISON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€JACKSON,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOE€C.€MORRIS,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌò òCONNIE€WESTBROOKÌTHOMAS€E.€VORNBERGERÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantÌÌò òCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌKIMBERLY€M.€FRAYNÌPursuant€to€Rule€7€of€the€Rules€Ìof€the€Supreme€Court€of€TennesseeÌJENNIFER€HELTON€SMALLÌDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Appellee,€State€of€TennesseeÌÌò òCARY€SCHWIMMERÌKAREN€W.€GROCHAUÌKIESEWETTER€WISE€KAPLAN€SCHWIMMER€&€PRATHER,€PLCÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Appellee,€Noma€Outdoor€Products,€Inc.ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌœÓÓó ó›à àIn€this€unemployment€compensation€case,€James€Mitchell€(ð ðMitchellðð)€filed€aÏclaim€Ñ7€MéXXdæXXdæ7Ñfor€unemployment€compensation€with€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏEmployment€Security€(ð ðTDESðð).€€TDES€approved€Mitchellððs€claim,€and€MitchellððsÏemployer,€NOMA€Outdoor€Products,€Inc.€(ð ðNOMAðð),€appealed€TDESðð€claim€approval.€ÏOn€appeal,€the€Appeals€Tribunal€ruled€that€Mitchell€was€not€eligible€for€unemploymentÏbenefits€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2)€due€to€work„connected€misconduct€andÏdeclared€that€the€$1,190.00€in€unemployment€benefits€that€Mitchell€had€previouslyÏreceived€was€an€overpayment.€€Mitchell€thereafter€requested€that€TDES€waive€œhis›Ï$1,190.00€overpayment€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(d)(2).€€The€Appeals€TribunalÏdenied€Mitchellððs€request€for€a€waiver€of€the€overpayment,€and€Mitchell€appealed€theÏdecision€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal€to€the€Board€of€Review.€€€€The€Board€of€ReviewÏadopted€the€findings€of€fact€and€decision€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal€and€denied€MitchellððsÏrequest€for€a€waiver€of€the€overpayment.€€Mitchell€thereafter€filed€a€petition€to€rehearÏwhich€was€denied€by€the€Board€of€Review.€€Pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„304(i),€MitchellÏfiled€a€petition€for€certiorari€in€chancery€court€seeking€judicial€review€of€the€BoardððsÍdecision.€€The€chancery€court€dismissed€Mitchellððs€petition€for€certiorari€and€affirmedÏthe€decision€of€the€Board€of€Review,€denying€Mitchellððs€request€for€a€waiver€of€theÏoverpayment.€œMitchell›€appeals€from€the€order€of€the€chancery€court€arguing€that€theÏchancery€court€erred€in€admitting€additional€evidence€and€erred€in€not€vacating€orÏsetting€aside€the€decision€of€the€Board€of€Review.€€For€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,€weÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌÌà àœThe€following€facts€were€found€by€the€Appeals€Tribunal.€€From€September€13,Ï1988€until€May€18,€1993,€Mitchell€was€employed€by€NOMA€as€an€assistant€controller€inÏcredit€and€collections.€€As€assistant€controller,€Mitchellððs€employment€responsibilitiesÏincluded€pursuing€late€payments€and€employing€collection€agencies€to€pursue€lateÏpayments.€€After€an€investigation€by€the€U.S.€Attorneyððs€Office,€€Mitchell€was€indicted€inÏtwo€counts€of€an€indictment€as€one€of€the€credit€and€collection€managers€who€receivedÏmonetary€kickbacks€from€collection€agencies.€€As€a€result€of€the€indictment,€MitchellÏwas€arrested€by€FBI€officials€while€at€work€on€May€3,€1993.€€An€FBI€investigationÏuncovered€two€checks€made€payable€to€Mitchell€from€collection€agencies€named€inÏthe€indictment€for€one„third€of€the€amount€that€NOMA€had€paid€the€collection€agenciesÏtwo€days€earlier.€€An€investigation€by€NOMA€following€Mitchellððs€arrest€revealed€a€lackÏof€documentation€in€their€files€concerning€the€collection€agencies€under€indictment€asÏcompared€to€their€documentation€regarding€other€collection€agencies€in€their€files.ÏNOMA€also€discovered€that€money€was€not€collected€and€forwarded€to€them€in€theÍusual€manner€by€the€collection€agencies€named€in€the€indictment.€€NOMAððs€filesÏindicated€a€lack€of€charges€to€debtors€for€fees€paid€to€the€indicted€collection€agencies,Ïwhich€was€inconsistent€with€NOMAððs€procedure€with€other€collection€agencies.€€InÏaddition,€after€NOMA€personally€contacted€some€of€the€debtors€involved,€the€debtorsÏindicated€that€they€had€had€no€contact€with€any€collection€agencies€trying€to€collect€aÏdebt.€€NOMA€thereafter€sought€information€from€Mitchell€concerning€the€irregularitiesÏuncovered€in€their€investigation.€€When€asked€about€the€discrepancies,€MitchellÏrefused€to€respond,€and€NOMA€terminated€Mitchellððs€employment.€€ÌÌà àOn€June€1,€1993,€Mitchell€filed€a€claim€for€unemployment€compensation€withÏTDES.€€NOMA€subsequently€submitted€its€answer€to€TDESðð€request€for€separationÏinformation€and€stated€in€its€answer€that€Mitchell€was€ð ðterminated,€effective€May€18,Ï1993,€because€of€breach€of€the€duties€of€loyalty€and€trust,€and€misuse€of€position.€ÏReceived€unauthorized€payment€from€vendor.ðð€ÌÌà àTDES€approved€Mitchellððs€claim€for€unemployment€benefits€on€June€9,€1993,Ïand€NOMA€appealed€TDESðð€claim€approval€to€the€Appeals€Tribunal.€ÌÌà àBased›€upon€their€findings€of€fact,€the€Appeals€Tribunal€ruled€that€Mitchell€wasÏnot€eligible€for€unemployment€compensation€benefits€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2)€due€to€employee€misconduct.€€œThe›€Appeals€Tribunal€œdetermined›€that€theÏevidence€showed€that€Mitchellððs€actions€amounted€to€work„connected€misconductÏwithin€the€meaning€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2)€for€two€reasons.€€First,€the€AppealsÍTribunal€concluded€€that€Mitchell€took€personal€payments€from€collection€agencies€thatÏdid€business€with€NOMA€in€collecting€past€due€debts;€and€second,€the€AppealsÏTribunal€concluded€that€Mitchellððs€failure€to€cooperate€with€NOMA€in€responding€toÏquestions€arising€out€of€the€scope€of€Mitchellððs€employment€amounted€to€work„connected€misconduct.ÓÓÌÌà8 àÌÓÓà àInstead€of€appealing€the€decision€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal€to€the€Board€ofÏœReview,€Mitchell›€requested€that€TDES€waive€œits›€$1,190.00€overpayment€œto€himÏpursuant›€to€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(d)(2)€which€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à[u]pon›€written€request€by€any€such€person€submitted€to€theÏcommissioner€within€ninety€(90)€days€from€the€date€ofÏdetermination€of€the€overpayment,€the€commissioner€shallÏwaive€repayment€of€the€overpaid€amounts€if€such€personÏproves€to€the€satisfaction€of€the€commissioner€that€all€of€theÏfollowing€conditions€exist:Ìà8 àà8 àœà8 à(A)›€The€overpayment€was€not€due€to€fraud,Ïmisrepresentation€or€willful€nondisclosure€onÏthe€part€of€such€person;Ìà8 à€€à8 àœà8 à(B)›€The€overpayment€was€received€withoutÏfault€on€the€part€of€such€person;€andÌà8 àà8 àœà8 à(C)›€The€recovery€of€the€overpayment€fromÏsuch€person€would€be€against€equity€andÏgood€conscience.ÌÌÌÓÓà àMitchellððs€request€for€a€waiver€of€the€overpayment€was€referred€to€the€AppealsÏTribunal€for€a€hearing€and€decision.€€œThe›€decision€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal€states€inÏpart€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 àFINDINGS›€OF€FACT:€Claimant€filed€a€claim€forÏunemployment€benefits€on€June€1,€1993,€that€was€approvedÏby€Agency€decision.€€The€employer€filed€an€appeal,€and€aÏhearing€was€conducted€on€July€22,€1993,€at€which€time€bothÏparties€appeared€and€testified.€€The€Appeals€TribunalÍreversed€the€Agency€decision,€and€denied€benefits,Ïcreating€an€overpayment€of€$1190.€€Claimant€is€61€yearsÏold€and€unemployed.€€His€wife€is€employed€and€earnsÏabout€$25,000€per€year€which€is€their€total€œfamily€income.›€ÏThey€have€two€children,€both€of€whom€are€college€students,Ïdependant€upon€their€parents€for€support.€€Prior€to€hisÏseparation,€claimant€had€worked€as€an€account€managerÏfor€a€company€for€five€years,€and,€at€the€time€of€separation,Ïhis€salary€was€in€excess€of€$60,000€per€year.€€Prior€to€that,Ïhe€worked€for€another€company€for€seven€years,€and€hisÏsalary€was€about€$40,000€per€year€there.€€At€his€separation,Ïthey€had€living€expenses€for€a€household€of€four,€based€onÏa€family€income€of€about€$90,000€per€year,€which€includedÏa€house€valued€at€about€$200,000€on€which€they€paid€threeÏmortgage€payments.€€Claimant€has€since€had€to€sell€thatÏhouse,€and€purchase€another€one.€€He€has€estimated€hisÏmortgage€payments€are€about€$900€per€month.€€He€isÏseeking€and€is€able€to€accept€employment€if€offered.€€HeÏfeels€that€his€age€is€a€hindrance€in€employerððs€œ[sic]€wanting›Ïto€offer€him€work,€but€otherwise€has€no€limitations.€€HeÏgraduated€from€college€with€a€degree€in€business.€€TheÏdate€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal€decision€creating€theÏoverpayment€was€July€30,€1993.ÌÌà8 àœà8 àCONCLUSIONS›€OF€LAW:€While€claimant€is€not€nowÏemployed,€his€level€of€education€and€past€work€historyÏshow€that€he€is€capable€of€obtaining€employment€in€a€ratherÏhigh€salary€level.€€The€decision€creating€the€overpayment€inÏthis€matter€is€only€about€two€months€old.€€While€it€may€notÏbe€reasonable€on€the€part€of€the€agency€to€demandÏimmediate€and€total€repayment€of€the€overpayment,€it€isÏalso€not€unreasonable€to€give€claimant€a€period€of€time€toÏsee€if€he€can€obtain€the€type€of€employment€he€has€had€inÏthe€past.€€It€is€premature€to€waive€the€overpayment.€€TheÏAppeals€Tribunal€finds€that€the€claimant€does€not€meet€theÏcriteria€of€TCA€50„7„303(d)€in€order€to€obtain€a€waiver€ofÏoverpayment.€€The€overpayment€is€not€waived.€ÌÌÓÓà àÌà àMitchell€appealed€the€Appeals€Tribunalððs€decision€to€the€Board€of€Review.€€TheÏBoard€of€Review€adopted€the€findings€of€fact€and€decision€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal€andÍaffirmed€the€Appeals€Tribunalððs€decision,€denying€Appellantððs€request€for€a€waiver€ofÏthe€overpayment.€€Mitchell€thereafter€filed€a€petition€to€rehear€which€was€denied€by€theÏBoard€of€Review.€œPursuant›€to€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„304(i),€Mitchell€filed€a€petition€for€certiorariÏin€chancery€court€seeking€judicial€review€of€the€Boardððs€decision.€œThe›€chancery€courtÏdismissed€Mitchellððs€petition€for€certiorari€and€affirmed€the€decision€of€the€Board€ofÏReview,€denying€Mitchellððs€request€for€a€waiver€of€the€overpayment.€ÌÌà@ àò òLAWó óÌÌà àThe€two€issues€before€this€Court€are€as€follows:Ìà à1)€œWhether›€the€chancery€court€erred€in€affirming€the€decision€of€the€Board€ofÏReview,€denying€Appellantððs€request€for€waiver€of€overpayments;€andÌà à2)€œWhether›€the€chancery€court€erred€in€admitting€additional€evidence€in€theÏhearing€on€Appellantððs€petition€for€certiorari.ÌÌà àThe€standard€of€review€of€this€Court€and€of€the€chancery€court€is€set€forth€inÏT.C.A.€ðð€50„7„304(i)€which€states€in€part€as€follows:à àÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à(2)›€The€chancellor€may€affirm€the€decision€of€the€board€orÏthe€chancellor€may€reverse,€remand€or€modify€the€decisionÏif€the€rights€of€the€petitioner€have€been€prejudiced€becauseÏthe€administrative€findings,€inferences,€conclusions€orÏdecisions€are:ÌÌà àœà8 à(A)›€In€violation€of€constitutional€or€statutory€provisions;ÌÌà àœà8 à(B)›€In€excess€of€the€statutory€authority€of€the€agency;ÌÌà àœà8 à(C)›€Made€upon€unlawful€procedure;ÌÌà àœà8 à(D)›€Arbitrary€or€capricious€or€characterized€by€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€or€clearly€œunwarranted›€exercise€of€discretion;€€orÌÌà àœà8 à(E)›€Unsupported€by€evidence€which€is€both€substantial€andÏmaterial€in€the€light€of€œthe›€entire€record.ÌÌà8 àœà8 à(3)›€In€determining€the€substantiality€of€evidence,€theÏchancellor€shall€take€into€account€whatever€in€the€recordÏfairly€detracts€from€its€weight,€but€the€chancellor€shall€notÏsubstitute€the€chancellor's€judgment€for€that€of€the€board€ofÏreview€as€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€on€questions€of€fact.€ÏNo€decision€of€the€board€shall€be€reversed,€remanded€orÏmodified€by€the€chancellor€unless€for€errors€which€affect€theÏmerits€of€the€final€decision€of€the€board.̛̜ÌÌÓÓà àIn€reviewing€an€administrative€decision,€a€court€shall€not€substitute€its€judgmentÏfor€that€of€the€agency€as€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€on€questions€of€fact.€€òòSouthernÏRy.€Co.€v.€State€Bd.€of€Equalizationóó,€682€S.W.2d€œ196,€199›€(Tenn.€1984).€€FactualÏissues€are€reviewed€based€upon€a€standard€of€substantial€and€material€evidence.€€òòIdóó;ÏòòCF€Industries€v.€Tennessee€Public€Service€Commissionóó,€599€S.W.2d€536,€540€(Tenn.Ï1980).€€Substantial€and€material€evidence€has€been€defined€as€ð ðsuch€relevantÏevidence€as€a€reasonable€mind€might€accept€to€support€a€rational€conclusion€andÏsuch€as€to€furnish€a€reasonably€sound€basis€for€the€action€under€consideration.ðð€ÏòòSouthern€Ry.€Co.óó,€682€S.W.2d€at€199;€òòPace€v.€Garbage€Disposal€District€ofÏWashington€Countyóó,€390€S.W.2d€461,€463€(Tenn.€1965);€òòSweet€v.€State€Tech.€InstituteÏat€Memphisóó,€617€S.W.€2d€158,€161€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981).€€If€substantial€and€materialÏevidence€exists€to€support€the€agencyððs€decision,€we€are€limited€to€a€review€of€theÏquestions€of€law€presented.€€òòPerryman€v.€Bibleóó,€653€S.W.2d€424,€429€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ïœ1983);€òòIrvin€v.€Binkleyóó,€577€S.W.2d€677,€678€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978).›Ìà àA€claimant€shall€be€disqualified€from€benefits€if€the€claimant€was€dischargedÏfrom€work€due€to€misconduct€connected€with€the€claimantððs€work.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2).€€Although€the€statute€does€not€define€work„connected€misconduct,€theÏcourts€have€been€left€œwith›€the€authority€interpret€its€meaning€on€a€case„by„case€basis.€ÏòòWallace€v.€Stewartóó,€559€S.W.2d€647,€648€(Tenn.€1977);€òòTroutt€v.€Carl€K.€Wilson€Co.óó,Ï410€S.W.2d€177,€180€(Tenn.€1966);€òòArmstrong€v.€Neelóó,€725€S.W.2d€953€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1986);€òòJackson€v.€Bibleóó,€611€S.W.2d€588,€590„91€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).€€In€orderÏto€come€within€the€scope€of€the€statute,€the€work„connected€misconduct€must€amountÏto€a€breach€of€duty€owed€to€the€employer.€€òòWeaver€v.€Wallaceóó,€565€S.W.2d€867,€870Ï(Tenn.€1978);€òòArmstrongóó,€725€S.W.2d€at€955.€€Moreover,€the€fault€of€the€employee€mustÏbe€considered€when€determining€whether€an€employee€has€engaged€in€misconductÏconnected€with€work.€€€òòMcClellan€v.€Bibleóó,€699€S.W.2d€555€(Tenn.€1985);€òòArmstrongóó,Ï725€S.W.2d€at€955.Ìà àÌà àIn€the€present€case,€Mitchell€was€named€in€two€counts€of€an€indictment€forÏreceiving€monetary€kickbacks€from€collection€agencies.€€œAppellant›€was€later€arrestedÏby€FBI€officials€while€at€work€on€May€3,€1993.€€œAn›€FBI€investigation€uncovered€twoÏchecks€made€payable€to€Mitchell€from€collection€agencies€named€in€the€indictment€forÏone„third€of€the€amount€that€NOMA€had€paid€the€collection€agencies€two€days€earlier.€ÏœAfter›€investigating€the€allegations€against€Mitchell,€NOMA€questioned€MitchellÏconcerning€certain€irregularities€in€the€files€that€Mitchell€was€required€to€generate€andÏmaintain.€€œMitchell,›€however,€did€not€cooperate€with€NOMA€in€answering€theirÏquestions€concerning€his€involvement€in€this€matter.€€œBased€upon€the€aforementionedÍevidence,€we€conclude›€that€there€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€supporting€theÏchancellorððs€œdecision,›€denying€Mitchellððs€request€for€a€waiver€of€the€overpaymentÏpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2)€due€to€work„connected€misconduct.€Ìà àÌà àMitchell€also€argues€that€the€decision€of€the€chancery€court€should€be€reversedÏon€the€ground€that€the€chancery€court€admitted€into€evidence€three€additional€exhibitsÏwhich€were€not€considered€by€the€Appeals€Tribunal€or€the€Board€of€Review.€ÏSpecifically,€the€chancellor€admitted€copies€of€checks€received€by€Mitchell€fromÏvarious€collection€agencies,€œa€portion›€of€Mitchellððs€deposition€from€a€separate€civilÏaction€and€portions€of€the€transcript€from€Mitchellððs€hearing€before€the€AppealsÏTribunal.€€ÌÌà àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€chancery€court€to€review€the€œrecord›€of€the€proceedings€beforeÏthe€Board€of€Review€and€to€determine€whether€there€is€any€evidence€in€the€œrecord›€toÏsustain€the€Boardððs€findings€of€fact;€and€if€there€is€sufficient€evidence,€it€is€theÏchancellorððs€duty€to€apply€the€applicable€law€to€those€findings.€€òòCawthron€v.€Scottóó,€400ÏS.W.2d€240,€242„43€(Tenn.€1966);€òòIrvin€v.€Binkleyóó,€577€S.W.2d€677,€679€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1978).€€Consideration€of€additional€evidence€not€properly€before€the€AppealsÏTribunal€and€the€Board€of€Review€is,€therefore,€beyond€the€chancellorððs€scope€ofÏreview.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àWe€note,€however,€that€no€decision€of€the€Board€of€Review€ð ðshall€be€reversed,Ïremanded€or€modified€by€the€chancellor€unless€for€errors€which€affect€the€merits€of€theÍfinal€decision€of€the€board.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„304(i)(3).€€Similarly,€T.R.A.P.€36(b)€statesÏthat€a€final€judgment€shall€not€be€set€aside€unless€an€ð ðerror€involving€a€substantial€rightÏmore€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€or€would€result€in€prejudice€to€theÏjudicial€process.ðð€€òòSeeóó€œòòKeith›€v.€Murfreesboro€Livestock€œMarket,€Inc.óó,›€780€S.W.2d€œ751,Ï757„58›€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(stating€that€a€judgment€shall€be€reversed€only€for€errorsÏaffecting€the€final€judgment).ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€the€fact€that€the€chancellor€admitted€into€evidence€threeÏadditional€exhibits€which€were€not€before€the€Appeals€Tribunal€or€the€Board€of€Review,Ïthere€is€abundant€evidence€revealing€that€Appellant€breached€his€fiduciary€duties€ofÏtrust€and€loyalty€to€his€employer;€thus,€Mitchellððs€actions€come€œsquarely›€within€theÏpurview€of€work„connected€misconduct€as€defined€in€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2).€€TheÏœchancellorððs›€admission€of€the€additional€exhibits€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€theÏproceedings€and€was,€therefore,€harmless€error.€€ÌÌà àThe€decision€of€the€chancery€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€œappeal›€shall€beÏtaxed€to€the€Appellant€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.›