Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance
Subject: Sandra L. Halgerson v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, Court of Appeals (Dist. II), No. 00-1401, February 7, 2001 (unpublished per curiam decision)
Please note that Wis. Stat. § 809.23(3) provides that an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals is of no precedential value and for that reason may not be cited in any court in this state as precedent or authority. Summaries of unpublished Court of Appeals decisions are included in this collection as an informational service only, and their use contrary to 809.23(3) is not encouraged.
Digest Codes: BR 330
It was determined that claimant had worked and earned wages from two different employers in certain weeks during which she was claiming benefits and reporting that she was not working or earning wages, and an overpayment was determined and a forfeiture assessed. The Appeal Tribunal upheld these determinations. The commission's decision affirmed. Claimant appealed, asserting (as she had below) that she had not worked for one of the employers at all. She alleged that there was some type of fraudulent scheme involving forgery and falsification of records in which some person or persons was trying to make it appear that she had been working for the one employer when in fact she had not.
The circuit court affirmed, noting that the case turned on an assessment of credibility and that the Appeal Tribunal and commission found the claimant incredible. Halgerson then appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Held: Affirmed. The Court of Appeals rejects Halgersons attack on the receipt of facsimile copies of disputed timecards, noting that this was consistent with the departments rules concerning receipt of evidence. In addition to the time cards, there was testimonial evidence supporting the findings. The Court defers to LIRCs credibility assessment. It was reasonable for LIRC to draw an inference from the fact that Halgerson filed a tax return acknowledging receipt of wages as shown on a W-3 she received from one of the employers. The inference of intentional concealment was also reasonable on this record, based on the assessment by the appeal tribunal and LIRC that Halgersons claim, that someone from the department told her that her work for the other employer was not work that needed to be reported, was "unlikely".
Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.
[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]