Proulx v. Horiba – 18.21

Proulx v. Horiba Subsidiary Inc.

Digest no. 18.21

Sections 54(b), 62(b)

View/Download Full Decision

Cite as: Proulx v. Horiba Subsidiary, unpublished decision of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, issued Oct. 01, 2014 (Appeal Docket no. 14-006880-241108).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).

Facts:

Decision:

Rationale:

Digest author: Steve Gray

Digest updated: 5/15