Sallmen v Danti Tool & Die, Inc – 18.10

Sallmen v Danti Tool & Die, Inc
Digest no. 18.10

Section 62(b)

Cite as: Sallmen v Danti Tool & Die, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Saginaw Circuit Court, issued September 8, 1986 (Docket No. 86-23988-AR-3).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ermin Sallmen
Employer: Danti Tool & Die, Inc.
Docket no.: B85 09103 100921W
Date of decision: September 8, 1996

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Any and all earnings regardless of how small must be reported to the Commission when certifying for benefits.

FACTS: After becoming unemployed the claimant began to perform part time services for another employer. The services consisted of the claimant’s participating in a sales training program. During this program the claimant received $90.00 per week against future commissions.

Although earning $90.00 per week, the claimant failed to disclose these earnings to the Commission when he certified for his weekly benefits. The claimant indicated he failed to do so because a Commission clerk had advised him that if he earned less than half of his weekly benefit rate he would still be entitled to his full weekly benefits. Therefore, he did not think it necessary to disclose he was working and earning $90.00 per week since that was less than half of his benefit rate.

DECISION: Board decision modified. Claimant must pay restitution, but intentional misrepresentation not established. No fraud penalty.

RATIONALE: It was clear that the claimant had accepted and performed services for the new employer for remuneration and therefore had earnings within the meaning of Section 48(1) of the MES Act.

The claimant had a legal duty to disclose to the Commission that he was working and receiving pay from another employer regardless of the impact on his benefit rate.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
6/91

Pardon v MESC – 18.09

Pardon v MESC
Digest no. 18.09

Section 62(b)

Cite as: Pardon v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued November 8, 1984 (Docket No. 82-219 979 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Larry A. Pardon
Employer: Imperial Cab
Docket no.: B79 16525 77987
Date of decision: November 8, 1984

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The claimant was not seeking work, was not available for work and wrongfully claimed his children as dependents for purposes of calculations. Consequently, he was subject to the fraud provision of the MES Act, Section 62(b).

FACTS: The claimant had owned a corporation which provided package transportation services. Ultimately the business went bankrupt. The assets of the claimant’s corporation were sold to another corporation owned by his wife which also provided package delivery services. Thereafter, the claimant spent anywhere between 20 and 40 hours per week providing uncompensated services for his wife’s corporation, and spent his free time at a health club.

During the period he was providing uncompensated services and spending a good deal of time at a health club the claimant was drawing unemployment benefits. For purposes of calculation of his benefit rate the claimant claimed his children as dependents. Although the claimant’s four children were all under the age of 13, the wife’s corporation paid them thousands of dollars per year for nominal services. Monies paid to the children were used for household purposes.

DECISION: The claimant was ineligible for benefits and subject to the penalty provision of MES Act Section 62(b) for intentional misrepresentation.

RATIONALE: Although he certified he was seeking work and available the claimant was not looking for a job but was providing uncompensated services to his wife and spending the bulk of his free time in athletic pursuits.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
6/91

Sanders v MESC – 18.12

Sanders v MESC
Digest no. 18.12

Section 62(b)

Cite as: Sanders v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued April 30, 1957 (Docket No. 287-132).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Early Sanders
Employer: Chrysler Corporation
Docket no.: B56-769-18197
Date of decision: April 30, 1957

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The burden of establishing fraud by competent evidence rests with the MESC.

FACTS: The claimant received a telegram on Thursday to return to work that same day. Also that day he reported to an office of the Commission and obtained a benefit check for the previous week. The following week he again reported to the Commission and certified for benefits for the prior week despite having returned to work for part of that week.

DECISION: The finding of claimant fraud was upheld.

RATIONALE: The Commission’s agent testified the claimant was asked about his earnings in the week in question. She said she did not require the claimant to fill in the day of the week and it is conceivable that had she so required, the claimant would have changed his entries. But that is conjecture. The fact remains that the dates the claimant entered were wrong and that he had returned to work on the day he had received his previous benefit check.

The burden should be upon the Commission to establish that fraud was committed, and fraud should not be presumed but established by competent proof that persuades one that a proper inference may be drawn. For it must be conceded that the Commission could not be expected to secure an admission by a claimant that he had committed a fraud. So, to prove an intent to defraud an inference must be drawn from the facts themselves.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
7/99