STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)

WANDA M MADSEN, Employee

VILLAGE OF HAMMOND
ST CROIX CO, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 07201336EC

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee's request for hearing on the merits of her claim is dismissed, and the department determination remains in effect.

Dated and mailed October 12, 2007
madsewa . usd : 115 : 1  PC 711

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION


A department determination finding that the employee had quit with no qualifying exception, and denying benefits as a result, was dated and mailed on May 23, 2007, and stated on its face that it would become final unless a written appeal was postmarked or received by June 6, 2007.

The employee's appeal was prepared and signed by the employee, dated July 17, postmarked July 18, and received by the department on July 20, 2007.

The employee explains that, during the appeal period, she contacted an attorney who reviewed the determination, and then advised her that, in his opinion, she would automatically become eligible for benefits, even without appealing the determination, after the five weeks for which she would be receiving vacation pay from the employer had passed.

Based upon this advice, the employee decided not to appeal the determination.

This advice was incorrect. However, the employee is responsible for the acts or omissions of her attorney, and they are imputed to her. See, Kissel v. LIRC and Interstate Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc., Case No. 97-CV-111 (Wis. Cir. Ct. La Crosse Co., Aug. 29, 1997); Baker v. Emmpak Foods, UI Hearing No. 06600104MW (LIRC Feb. 17, 2006)(actions of employee's attorney imputed to her and consequently do not provide reason beyond control for untimely request for hearing).

cc: Attorney Autumn Lindquist


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

uploaded 2007/10/22