Wambaugh v Harvey Home
Digest no. 8.03
Cite as: Wambaugh v Harvey Home, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued September 29, 1980 (Docket No. B79 05675 68029).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Margie M. Wambaugh
Employer: Harvey Home
Docket no.: B79 05675 68029
Date of decision: September 29, 1980
BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: The period of ineligibility for failing, without good cause, to report to a Commission office as scheduled on a continued claim, is limited to weeks preceding the week of the appointment.
FACTS: Claimant had an on-going (continued) unemployment benefits claim. She reported to an MESC branch office to certify as to her eligibility on January 9, 1979. She was given a next appointment date of January 23, 1979 but for various reasons did not report on that date or until February 9, 1979. The MESC held her ineligible for the four week period from January 7, 1979 – February 3, 1979, including the two preceding weeks ending January 13 and 20 for which she could have certified on January 23 and the subsequent two weeks because by failing to report she did not “establish the effective date of the next succeeding benefit period.”
DECISION: Claimant is not ineligible pursuant to the reporting requirements of Sections 28 and 32 because the Board found claimant had good cause for failing to report. (Editor’s Note: Although in light of that finding the Board’s holding may appear to be dicta, various panels of the Board have since repeatedly followed the principle of Wambaugh.)
RATIONALE: MESC Rule 210(9) “is arbitrary and capricious….
The second function, that of establishment of the effective date of the next succeeding benefit period as a condition to the entitlement for benefits for such succeeding period, is meaningless. For example, the elements of eligibility for benefits can always (and only) be established at the conclusion of the week or weeks in question. Therefore, we hold that an individual who misses a bi-weekly reporting datewithout good cause shall forfeit only his entitlement to the prior two weeks of benefits, that is “the completed week or weeks of unemployment” referred to in Rule 210(9).”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 12/91