Hicks v. Randstad – 18.26

Hicks v. Randstad
Digest No. 18.26

Section 421.54 & Section 421.62

Cite as: Hicks v Randstad Employment Solutions LP, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, issued July 14, 2016 (Docket No. 15-064475-248535W).

Court: Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Derrick Hicks
Employer: Randstad Employment Solutions LP
Date of decision: July 14, 2016

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: Even though Claimant did not have good cause for the late protest, the fact that the Agency dismissed the fraud charges overrides the lack of good cause for late protest. The ALJ should have reversed the adjudications or held them void.

FACTS: On August 12, 2015, the Agency issued a determination that found Claimant subject to restitution and fraud provisions of the MESA. Claimant had until September 11, 2015 to file a protest. However the Agency did not receive a protest until December 9, 2015. On December 15, 2015 the Agency issued a redetermination that Claimant did not have good cause for the late protest. Claimant timely appealed the redetermination and had hearing before an ALJ on February 20, 2016. At the hearing, the Agency informed the ALJ that it was no longer pursuing fraud charges against Claimant because there was no indication that he intentionally misled the Agency or concealed information. Nevertheless, the ALJ affirmed the redetermination.

DECISION: The Appellate Commission decided that the fact that the Agency wished to dismiss the fraud charges overrides the lack of good cause for late protest. The Appellate Commission reversed the ALJ’s decision as well as the determination and redetermination. The Appellate Commission further decided that Claimant is not subject to penalties.

RATIONALE: While the claimant had no good cause for the late protest, since the Agency wished to dismiss the fraud charges, there was no need for a showing of good cause.

Digest author: Sara Posner, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: December 26, 2017

 

Gordon v. Miller Apple – 16.82

Gordon v. Miller Apple
Digest No. 16.82

Section 421.54

Cite as: Gordon v Miller Apple, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, issued October 3, 2012 (Docket No. B2011-11754-RM9-228743W).

Court: Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Thomas Gordon
Employer: Miller Apple, LP
Date of decision: October 3, 2012

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: The Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission (MCAC) 1) reversed an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) order denying rehearing, and 2) found the claimant had not committed fraud under Section 54(b).  

FACTS:  The Agency found Claimant disqualified for benefits and liable for penalties under the fraud provision of Section 54(b).  Claimant did not contest his ineligibility, but did deny that he had committed fraud under the statute.  Because both cases involve similar facts and points of law, they were docketed together for a hearing pursuant to Administrative Rule R421.1205.  Because the ALJ was unavailable, those hearings were cancelled and rescheduled for a subsequent date at 11:00am and 12:00 pm respectively.  Claimant’s attorney received only one of these notices of hearing, and thus told Claimant to arrive at noon on the day of the hearing.  When Claimant failed to appear for his 11:00 am hearing, he found the claim had been dismissed.  The ALJ subsequently found no good cause for Claimant’s failure to appear and denied his request for rehearing.  On the question of fraud, Claimant testified that while he did not contest his ineligibility, he did not commit fraud under Section 54(b).  Claimant had not reported his irregular part time earnings, but immediately began reporting them when informed of this requirement.

DECISION: The Commission made two holdings: on the question of Claimant’s request for rehearing, the Commission found good cause for Claimant’s failure to appear and set aside the ALJ order denying rehearing.  On the question of fraud, the Commission reversed the Agency determination finding fraud under Section 54(b), finding that Claimant did not intentionally misrepresent a material fact to obtain benefits to which he was not entitled.

RATIONALE: On the question of Claimant’s request for rehearing, the Commission found that the attorney’s failure to receive both notices of hearing established good cause for Claimant’s failure to appear at his first scheduled hearing.  On the question of fraud, the Commission found Claimant’s testimony credible in showing he did not intentionally misrepresent a material fact to the Agency to obtain benefits he was not entitled to, and thus did not commit fraud within the meaning of Section 54(b).  Here, Claimant incorrectly reported irregular part-time income to the Agency, but called the Agency to determine if and how to report these earnings.  As soon as Claimant discovered his error, he began reporting his earnings.  The Commission thus found that while he remained ineligible for benefits, he did not commit fraud under Section 54(b).

Digest author: Laura Page, Michigan Law, Class of 2018
Digest updated: December 27, 2017

 

Olivarez v Unemployment Insurance Agency – 18.16

Olivarez v Unemployment Insurance Agency
Digest No. 18.16

Section 62 & Section 54

Cite as: Olivarez v Unemployment Insurance Agency, unpublished opinion of the Saginaw County Circuit Court, issued November 17, 2008 (Docket No. 08-000366-AE-3).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: William Olivarez
Employer: Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency
Date of decision: November 17, 2008

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: The court reversed the fraud decision because there was not competent, material, and substantial evidence to support it.

FACTS: Claimant  worked for the Agency and applied for benefits while on long term disability. The Agency ordered restitution and Claimant won at the ALJ hearing but lost at MCAC.

MCAC held that there was fraud because Claimant collected while on long term disability; he knew there was an issue about whether he could do so; an employee of the disability insurance company told him this was alright; and Claimant should have known to go to Agency with questions about eligibility.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for benefits. The Agency did not provide sufficient evidence for fraud.

RATIONALE: On eligibility, there was a doctor’s note that said Claimant could not do any work at all. This was competent, material, and substantial evidence and the court affirmed this decision.

Regarding fraud, there was not sufficient evidence to “support a finding of wrongful, quasi-criminal behavior.” The court went on to say: “Fraud, while easily claimed, is not lightly proven.” Citing Mallery v Van Hoeven, 332 Mich 561, 568; (1952). Fraud must be established by evidence. This was a “skimpy record” and does not “support a finding of serious wrongdoing, even under the relatively light standard of substantial evidence.”

Digest author: Benjamin Tigay, Michigan Law, Class of 2018
Digest updated: December 1, 2017