This opinion will be unpublished and
                  may not be cited except as provided by
               Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994)

                          State of Minnesota
                            in Court of Appeals

     Sandra M. Schwartz,


Commissioner of Economic Security,

Filed June 25, 1996


Short, Judge

Department of Economic Security

File Nos. 7450UCOP9

Sandra M. Schwartz, 10645 Mayfield Avenue North, Stillwater, MN 55082 (Pro
Se Relator)

Kent E. Todd, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent)

Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and
Short, Judge.
                        Unpublished Opinion

SHORT, Judge (Department of Economic Security Rep. Lee Nelsen)

The Commissioner of Economic Security, by her representative, concluded
relator was overpaid reemployment benefits in 1994 and 1995. Before us on a
writ of certiorari, relator argues the employer's evidence of her earnings
was erroneous. We affirm.

When the Commissioner determines a claimant has received reemployment
benefits in error, those benefits must be returned to the Department. Minn.
Stat. §§ 268.10, subd. 2(4), 268.18, subd. 1 (Supp. 1995). Our
review of an overpayment determination is governed by the rules applicable
to appeals from other benefit determinations. Grewe v. Commissioner of
Economic Sec., 385 N.W.2d 894, 895 n. 1 (Minn. App. 1986) (citing Minn.
Stat. §𨵤.10, 268.18, subd. 1 (1982) ). Thus, appellate courts
must view the Commissioner's findings
        in the most favorable light * * * [and] where there
        is evidence reasonably tending to sustain them such
        findings will not be disturbed.

Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 374, 107 N.W.2d 386, 392-93 (1961).
We will not reweigh the evidence to determine where the preponderance lies,
but only examine the evidence to determine whether it reasonably supports
the Commissioner's decision. Nyberg v. R. N. Cardozo & Bro., 243
Minn. 361, 364, 67 N.W.2d 821, 823 (1954).

Relator argues the employer submitted incorrect statements of her earnings.
However, the record establishes:(1) relator failed to offer specific
evidence showing the employer's records as amended were incorrect; and (2)

the records originally submitted by the employer were amended to reflect
relator's argument that her work week began on Monday, rather than on
Sunday. Under these circumstances, the evidence reasonably tends to support
the Commissioner's finding that the Department overpaid relator's benefits
in 1994 and 1995.