Dunlap v MESC – 12.08

Dunlap v MESC
Digest no. 12.08

Section 29(1)(b)

Cite as: Dunlap v MESC, 99 Mich App 400 (1980); lv den 411 Mich 904 (1981).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: James W. Dunlap
Employer: Tenneco, Inc.
Docket no.: B76 12291 RO 55244
Date of decision: August 12, 1980

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: “Every minor misstatement on an employment application does not constitute statutory misconduct of a level to justify denial of payment of unemployment compensation benefits.”

FACTS: The claimant stated on his application and medical history questionnaire that he had not had back trouble. He was discharged when treatment for an alleged work-related back injury disclosed that the claimant had hurt his back in a swimming accident six years prior to his date of hire.

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for misconduct.

RATIONALE: “In this case, the act upon which the conclusion of misconduct was based occurred prior to employment. Every minor misstatement on an employment application does not constitute statutory misconduct of a level to justify denial of payment of unemployment compensation benefits.

“We would believe that plaintiff’s failure to characterize his minor swimming accident of six years earlier as ‘back trouble’ or ‘back injury’ was more error of judgment than a deliberate and intentional falsification of his medical history. Under these circumstances, we decline to find that the trial judge was clearly erroneous in holding that, on the facts of this case, the so- called misrepresentation on the job application did not constitute such misconduct as to disqualify plaintiff from unemployment compensation benefits.”

Digest Author:  Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 6/91