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

JACQUELYNNE L BARRET, Claimant

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 09604217MW


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 claimant shall forfeit $1,420.00 in unemployment benefits that become payable by March 7, 2015.

Dated and mailed September 30, 2009
barreja . usd : 145 : 6   BR 330

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The claimant has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision. The claimant states that the poor job market adversely affected her ability to find a job. The claimant states that she found a part-time job and when she made her next claim, there was a recording that states that because of the overwhelming amount of calls, any changes made to a claim "would result in a delay in benefits in excess of 30 days." The claimant at her hearing testified that when she reported her claim "it" gave information about possible extensions and that changes in claims or investigations into claims could take up to 30 days to be concluded and payments could be suspended or withheld for up to 30 days. The claimant's assertion in her petition differs materially from her testimony at the hearing in that the claimant in her petition extended the amount of delay and indicates that the delay would have been a certainty, not a mere possibility. The claimant then later indicated that she actually heard the information about the delay in payments on television. As such, the commission did not find the claimant's testimony about why she failed to report wages she earned to be particularly credible.

The claimant blames her failure to report work and wages in large part on the department because she could not contact a person to discuss the situation. The claimant was well aware that she was required to report these wages. The only thing she wished to discuss with a person was the amount of time, if any, her benefits would be held up. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that what the claimant believed was true and that benefits would be held up, the claimant should not have intentionally falsified her claims as the falsification resulted in a higher payment than she would otherwise have received. Likewise, the fact that the claimant's goal was to better herself and find a higher paying job does not excuse her falsification of her claim.



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


uploaded 2009/10/23