CARLOS A ESPINOSA, Employee
GRAND GENEVA LLC, Employer
In a written petition filed by facsimile transmission three days after the issuance of the appeal tribunal decision, the employee indicated that he never received notice for the January 26 hearing. The administrative law judge found, based solely on the employee's written submission, that his assertion of non-receipt of the hearing notice was not credible. Due Process requires, however, that the employee be given a hearing on the matter. See, e.g., Nelson v. Marc Plaza Corp., Case No. 148-416 (Dane Cty. Cir. Ct. May 27, 1976) (" . . . the employe, having made prompt complaint about lack of notice of the hearing, is constitutionally entitled to another hearing to determine the issue of whether notice of the original hearing was received by him in the mail."). If the employee ultimately establishes that he had good cause for his failure to have appeared at the scheduled hearing, then the Department of Workforce Development will schedule hearing on the merits in due course. If the employee ultimately is unable to establish good cause for his failure to have appeared at the scheduled hearing, then the initial determination will stand.
Dated and mailed April 7, 2004
espinca . upr : 105 : 8 PC 712.1 PC 712.9
/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman
/s/ James T. Flynn, Commissioner
/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner
cc:
Grand Geneva LLC - Lake Geneva, WI
Gilbert Medina
[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]
uploaded 2004/04/12