UIA v Desilets – 16.79

UIA v. Desilets
Digest no. 16.79

Sections 32(d), 32a

Cite as: UIA v Desilets, unpublished opinion of the St. Clair County Circuit Court, issued June 26, 2002 (Docket No. 01-003178-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Steven Desilets
Employer: E.B. Metzen
Docket no.: 01-003178-AE
Date of decision: June 26, 2002

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: Under Section 32(d), without a showing of good cause, the Agency is unable to issue a redetermination after one year has passed following its initial determination.

FACTS: Claimant was laid off from E.B. Metzen on December 13, 1999. Claimant filed for unemployment benefits and checks were accordingly issued during January and February of 2000. In October of 2000, UIA requested information from Employer regarding pay received by Claimant during months benefit checks were issued. UIA sent an inquiry to claimant exactly one year after he was fired from Employer, dated December 13, 2000. Claimant responded to inquiry on December 26, 2000. During May 2001, Agency sent a redetermination to Claimant issuing an order for restitution in the amount of $686, for holiday pay received by Claimant during the holiday season of 1999. Claimant sent timely appeal of protest.

The ALJ issued a determination declaring that the Agency had no authority to issue the redetermination, since the redetermination was made one year after its initial determination.  The Agency appealed to the Board of Review in October 2011, which affirmed the ALJ decision. The Agency appealed to the Circuit Court.

DECISION: The Board of Review decision to uphold the ALJ decision is affirmed.

RATIONALE: The UIA’s original issuance of benefit checks is considered the beginning date from which the original determination is made.  Accordingly, under Section 32(d)’s, any rehearing or reconsideration of the claimant’s case must fall within the one-year period of time following this initial determination.  Good cause must be established to allow for reconsideration after one year, and the Agency has the burden being of establishing good cause. Here, the Agency did not establish good cause to allow reconsideration after one year.

The Agency argued that its request for further information from Claimant was the initiation of the reconsideration process, and because this fell within the one-year period, a showing of good cause is not required. The court ruled that the beginning of an investigative process is insufficient to satisfy the initiation requirement. The issuance of the redetermination must fall before the deadline, and here the redetermination which was issued in May 2011 did not satisfy the statutory language regarding initiation of reconsideration.

Digest Author: A. Kaled
Peer Review: N. Phillips
Digest Editor: Jack Battaglia
Digest Updated: 8/14