Saylor v. C.L. Rieckhoff Co.
Digest No. 16.95
Cite as: Saylor v C L Rieckhoff Co, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, issued August 2, 2017 (Docket No. 16-029832-252337W).
Court: Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Brian Saylor
Employer: C.L. Rieckhoff Co.
Date of decision: August 2, 2017
HOLDING: The Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission held that the Agency must have an employer protest and a determination of eligibility before it can initiate a fraud investigation. Further, the Commission held that a benefit check determination of eligibility under 32(f) is not a sufficient predicate determination to issue a 62(a) fraud determination.
FACTS: Claimant had received benefits and the Agency issued him redeterminations accusing him of committing fraud. He was required to repay the amount received in benefits plus penalty. The Agency did not receive an employer protest, but rather issued the redetermination on its own motion.
The Agency argued that the benefit check determinations under 32(f) of the Act were sufficient to allow it to issue redeterminations. The Commission disagreed.
DECISION: The Commission’s decision rested on procedural due process. It decided that the method employed by the Agency in issuing the redetermination violated Claimant’s due process rights.
RATIONALE: The Commission’s decision stemmed from both a statutory construction of the MESA, due process, and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. The Commission found that 32(f) did not provide the basis for redeterminations finding fraud; rather, a separate determination of ineligibility needed to occur before a 62(a) redetermination of fraud could be found. Further, because there was no initial determination to serve as the foundation for the redetermination, the issuance of the redeterminations were procedurally deficient. The Commission reasoned that the MAPA required it to set aside the redeterminations regardless of whether Claimant timely appealed, as they were issued erroneously.
The Commission further noted that the Agency did not have the ability to issue redeterminations without an employer protest outside of the time frame prescribed by section 32a of the Act.
Digest author: Travis R. Miller, Michigan Law, Class of 2018
Digest updated: January 2, 2018