IBRAHIM TANER, Employee
COLUMBIA SUSSEX CORP, Employer
Department records reflect that Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gelhard for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter on September 30, 2003.(1) The decision reversed the initial determination, finding that the employee voluntarily terminated his employment, he was ineligible for benefits and was found to have been overpaid benefits totaling $4,560.00 that he was directed to repay.
On November 14, 2003, the benefit collection computer record reflects that the employee contacted the department and a payment agreement was reached. In May 2004, the claimant notified the collection department of his securing part-time work and his attempt to repay the overpayment. The computer records for collections further reflect that the employee was sent billing notices once a month in the months of December 2003 through June 2004. Then, in June 2004, a Notice of Intent to Certify Debt was generated; the warrant was filed in Milwaukee County. Another billing notice was sent in July 2004.
In July 2007, the employee again attempted to set up a repayment arrangement, indicating that he had just moved back to Wisconsin and the billing notices resumed. Payments were made on the balance with collection records reflecting that some amounts were via the Department of Revenue (DOR).
On October 9, 2008, the department of collections noted its receipt of a letter from the employee, seeking waiver of the overpayment.
On February 24, 2009, comments were added to the collection record indicating that the employee was advised to follow up with the Department of Revenue regarding his refund and the Milwaukee Hearing Office regarding an appeal; it is noted that the employee was provided their telephone numbers.
On June 30, 2009, a notation reflects another contact between the employee and the collections department indicating that the claimant was confused, did not have his statement and another statement with coupon was generated and sent.
On April 12, 2009, the Milwaukee Hearing Office forwarded the claimant's October 7, 2008 letter indicating that it had just been received from the collections department. The letter was processed as a petition for commission review. The letter requests a waiver of the overpayment recovery, and notes that he "never received a letter notifying me that I owed this amount or the reason the payment was being revoked" and that when
"I called the Madison office, they explained to me that I needed to repay the government $4,510.00. . . However, I was never notified of this debt or the reason I must repay it."
Wisconsin Stat. § 108.09 (6)(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
"The department or any party may petition the commission for review of an appeal tribunal decision, pursuant to commission rules, if such petition is received by the department or commission or postmarked within 21 days after the appeal tribunal decision was mailed to the party's last-known address. The commission shall dismiss any petition if not timely filed unless the petitioner shows probable good cause that the reason for having failed to file the petition timely was beyond the control of the petitioner . . ."
The administrative law judge's decision having been dated and mailed on September 30, 2003, the last day on which a timely petition for review could have been filed was October 21, 2003.
Unfortunately, the employee's petition was delayed in reaching the commission for a lengthy period. However, even had the petition been promptly forwarded to the commission on October 7, 2008, it would have still been almost five years after the appeal deadline. During that time, numerous notices were mailed to the employee about the overpayment, the need to repay it and the certification of the debt. Additionally, given the collection record notations and the statement in the employee's petition, it appears he contacted the collections department to discuss the overpayment repayment. Thus, there is no evidence that the petition is late for a reason beyond the employee's control; the employee should have filed an appeal when he first received notice of the overpayment and, thus, the existence of the decision. See Dabney v. Roettgers Company Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 02605248MW (LIRC June 9, 2006).
The commission therefore finds that the petition for commission review was not timely and that the petitioner has not shown probable good cause that the reason for having failed to file the petition timely was beyond the petitioner's control, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.09 (6)(a).
The petition for review is dismissed.
Dated and mailed April 30, 2010
tanerib : 150 : PC 731
/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson
/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner
/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner
cc:
Milwaukee West Marriott Hotel
Milwaukee Hearing Office
UI Collections Department
[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]
uploaded 2010/05/12