Proulx v. Horiba Subsidiary Inc.
Digest no. 18.21
Cite as: Proulx v. Horiba Subsidiary, unpublished decision of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, issued Oct. 01, 2014 (Appeal Docket no. 14-006880-241108).
Appeal Pending: No
Claimants: Brian Proulx
Employer: Horiba Subsidiary Inc.
MCAC Docket no. 14-006880-241108
Date of decision: Oct. 1, 2014
Holding: An Agency fraud redetermination is insufficient when it merely provides a conclusory statement with no fact finding to support it. In addition a notice of hearing in a fraud case is insufficient when it does not include written notice of the penalties involved as required by MCAC Rule 421.1110(1).
Digest author: Steve Gray
Digest updated: 5/15