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

BRADLEY J HANSON, Claimant

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 09201164EC


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 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 is ineligible for emergency unemployment compensation (EUC2008) as of week 41 of 2008. The claimant is required to repay the sum of $3,179 to the Unemployment Reserve Fund.

Dated and mailed October 23, 2009
hansobr : 132 : 5   BR 338

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The claimant has petitioned for commission review of the appeal tribunal decision which found that he was not an "exhaustee" for EUC purposes and was required to repay $3,179.00 in benefits. The claimant states that he had a multi-state claim so the department was aware that he worked out of state. However, the department seeks to identify individuals with eligibility in other states by sending an EUC08-707 which asks the claimant to contact the department if the claimant has worked in another state in the last 18 months. This information is requested when a claimant becomes potentially eligible for EUC benefits. It is reasonable for the department to ask individuals who have worked out of state to alert the department of that work when it becomes relevant to determining EUC eligibility.

The department's witness testified, based on department records, specifically the Monetary Inquiry screen, that the EUC08-707 was sent to the claimant on October 7, 2008. The claimant testified that he did not receive that form. The commission has no reason to doubt the claimant. However, the commission also has no reason to doubt department records. The claimant was not at fault for the erroneous payment of benefits. However, repayment of erroneously paid benefits cannot occur unless the overpayment was due to departmental error. The evidence does not establish that the overpayment was due to departmental error.


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


uploaded 2009/12/14