BEFORE THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION


In the matter of the
unemployment benefit claim of

JAMES M. BUSCHMAN, Employe

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 89-401619 GB


Pursuant to the timely petition for review filed in the above-captioned matter, the Commission has considered the petition and all relief requested. The Commission has reviewed the applicable records and evidence and finds that the Appeal Tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported thereby. The Commission therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the Appeal Tribunal as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the Appeal Tribunal is affirmed. Accordingly, the claimant's request for hearing is dismissed.  The Initial Determination shall remain in effect.

Dated and mailed October 26, 1989
110 : CD3377  PC 712.4

/s/ Kevin C. Potter, Chairman

/s/ Carl W. Thompson, Commissioner

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his petition for Commission review, the claimant continues to assert that his failure to participate in the hearing was the result of an error by the Department in noting his telephone number.  The claimant argues, and the Department's files confirm, that he had provided his correct telephone number when he filed his claim for benefits.  It is apparent that a Department clerk subsequently made an error when entering information into the Department's records, showing an area code of 414 for the claimant's telephone number when in fact the claimant was in area code 715.  However, the Administrative Law Judge correctly noted that the Notice of Hearing prominently advised the claimant that he was required to contact the hearing office if the telephone number listed for him on the Notice of Hearing was incorrect and that his appeal would be dismissed if he failed to provide a correct telephone number or was unavailable when called for the hearing.  The telephone number shown for the claimant on the Notice of Hearing showed the incorrect area code, and had the claimant exercised due diligence in following the instructions on the hearing notice and inspecting the telephone number shown there, he could have promptly alerted the Department.  The claimant concedes that he simply overlooked the incorrectness of the telephone number shown for him on the Notice of Hearing.  Because the claimant was put on notice that he should check for the correctness of the telephone number, and because he failed to do so through an oversight on his part, it cannot be concluded that he showed probable good cause for his failure to be available to participate in the hearing.

 


[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]


uploaded 2005/07/13