BRIDGETTE D TERRY, Employee

JANE SCHAPIRO, Employer (1)

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance (UI) of the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) conducted a combined hearing for Hearing Nos. 13606607MW and 13606608MW on September 25, 2013. Based upon that hearing, ALJ Ortiz issued two appeal tribunal decisions on September 27, 2013.

 For Hearing No. 13606607MD, ALJ Ortiz found that the employee worked and earned wages in weeks 15 through 22, and 25 of 2013,(2) concealed that work and wages and, thus, was ineligible for any unemployment insurance benefits in those weeks and subject to a 15% penalty for the overpaid benefits. The decision further found that the employee was required to repay the overpaid benefits totaling $3,267.00 and the concealment overpayment penalty of $490.05.

 For Hearing No. 13606608MD, ALJ Ortiz found that for the employee's concealment of work and wages in weeks 15 through 22, and 25 of 2013, the employee's future benefit eligibility would be reduced by $6,534.00 for benefits and weeks that become payable by July 27, 2019.(3)

The employee timely petitioned for commission review.

The commission considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission issued an order on January 29, 2014, setting the appeal tribunal decisions aside and ordering an additional hearing for the purpose of obtaining testimony from a department witness and to have the documents referenced by the ALJ marked as exhibits, allowing the employee an opportunity to question the witness about the evidence and to present rebuttal evidence.

On February 26, 2014, the UI Bureau of Legal Affairs filed a Motion for the Commission to Set Aside its January 29, 2014 order and to reconsider the matter.

On February 27, 2014, the Commission declined to set its order aside, explaining that the ALJ had not properly taken administrative notice of department records and by doing so, deprived the employee of the opportunity for a meaningful response or objection. The commission further explained,

[T]he commission remanded this matter to allow the ALJ the occasion to follow proper procedure. It is entirely possible that the ALJ may reach the same decision in the case on remand. In any event, due process and DWD rules require that any evidence considered by the ALJ be taken into the record properly.

The commission realizes the precarious position in which ALJs may find themselves when marking the department's documents without testimony from a department witness. Without a proper foundation and explanation of the document, a party is not afforded a fair opportunity to object and present contrary evidence. Printouts, such as the Adjudicator's Preliminary Claimant Report, contain vast amounts of information which may need to be clarified by a department witness, especially when the ALJ may not be familiar with the department's coding.

In this case, upon remand, a department witness would, presumably, be able to explain whether the employee had reported work and wages in weeks other than those weeks at issue, and whether the employee had received partial benefits after doing so. In addition, given that the employee denied viewing the Handbook for Claimants, a department witness could testify concerning the department's processes for sending such information to claimants. This information would assist the ALJ in reaching a decision as to whether the department met its burden¹ to establish that the employee concealed information by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.² [footnotes omitted].

The Milwaukee Hearing Office(4) scheduled the matter to be held by a different ALJ on March 24, 2014. The employee appeared in person for the hearing; the employer did not appear. ALJ Rakowski introduced the record and set forth the procedural history, including a review of the initial determinations, the prior hearing and the LIRC order. The ALJ explained the hearing procedures, adding that decisions would be issued following the hearing and that the decisions would be based upon the evidence obtained at the hearing before him; no other evidence would be considered. In her position statement, the employee agreed that she earned the wages as reported by the employer but denied intentional concealment. In particular, the employee argued that she reported her hours of work on her weekly claims.

After an explanation of the hearing procedures, the ALJ telephoned a Disputed Claims Analyst of the UI department to provide testimony regarding the employee's UI claim. Although the Bureau of Legal Affairs for the department's UI Division (UI Bureau of Legal Affairs) has staff attorneys available to represent it, a staff attorney did not appear to represent the department's interests in this matter.

Following the March 24, 2014 hearing, ALJ Rakowski issued two decisions on March 27, 2014.

For Hearing No. 14601971MD, the ALJ found that the employee worked and earned wages in weeks 15 through 22, and 25 of 2013, but she did not conceal that work and wages and, thus, was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to the partial wage calculation. The decision further found that the employee was required to repay the overpaid benefits totaling $2,703.00. Given the finding of no concealment, no concealment overpayment penalty was assessed.

For Hearing No. 14601972MD, the ALJ found that the employee did not conceal work and wages in weeks 15 through 22, and 25 of 2013, and the employee's future benefit eligibility would not be reduced by $6,534.00 for benefits and weeks that become payable by July 27, 2019.

Following the issuance of the decisions, a staff attorney for the UI Bureau of Legal Affairs timely petitioned for commission review. The staff attorney attached two affidavits to the petition for commission review; one affidavit was from the department's Director of Claims Services, UI Division, and the other from a supervising attorney for UI Bureau of Legal Affairs. Both affidavits included numerous documents labeled as "exhibits" that were not introduced or marked as exhibits at the hearing conducted by ALJ Rakowski.

The department's petition did not assert that the information contained within the affidavits was newly discovered evidence; nor did it allege any other unusual or special circumstances that would justify the commission's consideration of this extra-record information.(5) In fact, as explained, the commission previously remanded the matter to the hearing office for a second hearing at which time a department witness could testify about the claiming process, presumably utilizing such documents as might be appropriate. In that way, the witness would be subject to cross-examination by the other party and to questioning by the ALJ, if he deemed it helpful to understand the process. That was the opportunity for the department to present this information, not by extra-record materials submitted after the ALJ issued his decisions. The commission will not consider these extra-record materials, nor will the commission again remand the matter for such additional evidence to be presented at another hearing.

The commission notes that the petition incorrectly provides that the appeal tribunal conducted a supplemental hearing. As mentioned above, the Milwaukee Hearing Office scheduled the matter before a different ALJ who indicated that the hearing was de novo. No prior testimony or exhibits were incorporated into the record.

In his petition, the staff attorney also asserts that certain facts established at the hearing on March 24, 2014 were incorrect. In particular, the petition argues that the employee had prior UI filing experience and that this prior experience is supported by notations in Exhibit 1. Yet, when questioned by the ALJ, the department's witness testified that she did not believe the employee had prior filing experience and the employee also denied prior filing experience. While there are notations on Exhibit 1 which would seem to note that prior claim issues had arisen with the employee, those notations were not addressed by the department's witness and Exhibit 1 does not show any UI benefit payments prior to week 11 of 2013. It is this precise complexity and possibility for error in reading such reports that was the basis for the commission's original remand in the matter.

Under these circumstances, the commission bases its review solely upon the record developed at the March 24, 2014 hearing. Any petition references to facts that are outside this record also will not be addressed.

To the extent that the department's petition is supported by the record, the commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ at the hearing on March 24, 2014. Based on its review, the commission makes the following:

The employer did not appear at the March 24, 2014 hearing. The employee appeared in person. A department witness appeared to present testimony. No other individuals appeared as witnesses or representatives.

The employee initiated her claim for UI benefits on March 13, 2013, explaining that she does not have a computer to access the department's on line filing system or information.(6) The employee used a rotary telephone when initiating her claim. This is significant because it establishes that the employee would have spoken to an employee of the department who keyed the employee's answers into the system.

The ALJ marked the Adjudicator's Preliminary Report as Exhibit 1. Although the department witness did not have the Adjudicator's Preliminary Report before her, she testified she was familiar with the report. She testified that it was a record of the employee's filing history as of March 17, 2014, the date it was printed.

A "screen print" of the documents sent to the employee and to the employer was marked as Exhibit 3. The department witness testified that Exhibit 3 documented that the employee was sent a Claim Confirmation and Instructions, on March 14, 2013. A copy of the Claim Confirmation and Instructions was marked as Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4 generally notes that a paper copy of the Handbook for Claimants(7) is included in the materials sent if the employee's claim was a new application for benefits.(8) It also warned the employee that she was responsible for knowing the information provided in the handbook. The ALJ marked a paper copy of the handbook as Exhibit 2. The employee did not recall receiving Exhibit 4 in the mail. The employee affirmatively denied receiving the Handbook for Claimants, Exhibit 2, in the mail.

On Sunday, April 7, 2013, the employee started performing part-time services as a home health aide for the employer, an individual. Her first paycheck was for the first Sunday shift, 12 hours in length. She was paid $15.00 per hour for her services. She stopped performing services in December 2013.

"Screen shots" of the employee's weekly claims for benefits were marked as Exhibit 5. For each week at issue, the calendar weeks ending April 13, April 20, April 27, May 4, May 11, May 18, May 25, June 1 and June 22 (UI weeks 15 through 22 and week 25), Exhibit 5 summarized the questions asked and the employee's responses. The employee filed her weekly claims for these weeks using the department's Initial Voice Response (IVR) or telephone system. The witness testified that Question 4 was abbreviated on Exhibit 5. Using the Handbook for Claimants, the witness explained that the question (Question 4) actually asked,

During the week, did you work or did you receive or will you receive sick pay, bonus pay or commission?(9)

For weeks 15 through 22 and week 25 of 2013, Exhibit 5 reflects that the employee responded "No" to Question 4.

For the week ending June 8, 2013 (week 23), Exhibit 5 reflects that the employee answered "Yes" to Question 4 and reported 32 hours of work and total wages of $441.02, from the employer at issue and a different employing unit, Elizabeth Residence.

For the week ending June 15, 2013 (week 24), Exhibit 5 reflects that the employee answered "Yes" to Question 4 and reported 28 hours of work and total wages of $390.00 from the employer at issue and Elizabeth Residence.

The employer purportedly returned a Weekly Earnings Audit form to the department. The ALJ marked the Weekly Earnings Audit and its attached page as Exhibit 6. The employee agreed that the wage information contained therein was correct.

The ALJ next marked Exhibit 7, a department form which appears to be a summary table of work and wages used by the department for adjudication purposes. The ALJ identified the form as a "more clear computer printout of Exhibit 6," but did not detail any of the differences between the exhibits. The employee indicated that she agreed with the information contained in Exhibit 7.

When questioned by the ALJ, the employee agreed that she generally knew that she was supposed to report her wages to the department. Despite this, the employee admitted answering "No" to Question 4 for the weeks at issue. She further explained that she did not understand the question and added that the weekly claim system still asked her to enter her hours of work for the week and that she entered her hours worked. When the ALJ questioned the employee's assertion that the weekly claiming system asked for her hours of work even after she answered "No" to Question 4, the employee maintained that she was asked to enter her hours of work and did so. She told the ALJ to "listen to all of the questions" and argued that the weekly claiming system asked about work more than once. She argued that the "automatic system is garbage and everybody is all caught up in that." When the ALJ asked the employee what she meant by "everybody," she explained that she just overheard a claimant telling an ALJ that the claimant did not understand the question. She also provided the name of another claimant that had a similar misunderstanding regarding the weekly claiming system. The employee added that she spoke with a department representative in June regarding the question. When specifically asked about her week 23 and week 24 weekly claims, the employee disputed the weekly claim record contained in Exhibit 5, indicating that she always answered "No" to the questions. The employee's testimony reflected a lack of understanding as to the ALJ's further questions regarding the contradictory information between Exhibit 5 and the employee's testimony.

The employee added that she did not receive weekly UI benefit payments until later in the process when she received a lump sum amount. While no testimony was taken as to the actual payments from the department witness, Exhibit 1 reflects that for the weeks at issue, $363.00 in UI benefits were paid for each week but the weeks were paid on June 25, 2013 (week 26).

In response to the employee's testimony, the department witness testified that she did not believe that the weekly claim system would ask about the hours of work and wages if the employee answered "No" to Question 4. However, in response to the employee's cross-examination, the witness conceded that she had not actually listened to the IVR claim questions for several years, predating the week 43 of 2012 change to Question 4.

Issues

The issues to be decided are whether the employee worked and earned wages in the applicable weeks, whether she concealed her work and wages for those weeks, whether she received benefits to which she was not entitled and which she must repay, and whether any concealment overpayment penalties must be assessed.

Work and Wages

The employee agreed with the wage data which appeared to be submitted by the employer on Exhibit 6. However, the format of the information was not easily transferrable to the UI benefit weeks. Based upon the evidence that the employee worked 12 hours her first working Sunday, and in the absence of any other evidence, the commission finds it reasonable to conclude that the employee worked a 12-hour caregiver shift every Sunday. From this and Exhibit 6, the commission calculates the following work and wages for the weeks of unemployment at issue.

Exhibit 7 reflects the following,

Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 contain conflicting information for issue weeks 15 and 25 of 2013. The conflict for week 15 is not material because each exhibit reflects work in excess of 32 hours for that week. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 108.05(3)(c), a claimant is ineligible for a partial benefit payment in any week in which the claimant works 32 or more hours. Yet, for week 25 the conflict is critical. The record is unclear as to where the information on Exhibit 7 was obtained; it contains no hourly breakdown. Further, while the ALJ asked the employee about the accuracy of Exhibit 7, he did not point out the differences between Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 6. Without any other evidence, the commission finds the record insufficient to establish work performed and wages earned in week 25 of 2013. The commission remands the determination of work and wages for this week to the department for adjudication.

Overpayment of UI Benefits

Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 108.05(3)(c), the employee was not eligible for a partial benefit payment in weeks 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of 2013 because she worked 32 or more hours each week. The employee was paid benefits of $363 each week and that entire amount, totaling $1,815 was overpaid. For weeks 16, 21, and 22, the employee's eligibility is subject to the partial benefit formula found at Wis. Stat. § 108.05(3)(a).(11) In weeks 16, 21 and 22, the employee worked 24 hours each week, earning $360.00 each week. Using the partial benefit formula, the employee was eligible for a UI benefit payment of $141.00 each week and was overpaid $222 each week. Thus, the employee's total overpayment equals $2,481.

Pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 108.04(13)(c) and 108.22(8)(c), if an employer is not at fault in the erroneous payment of benefits, the employee must repay the overpayment unless the overpayment was due to department error and without fault on behalf of the employee. In this case, there is no evidence of employer fault and the overpayment was created when the department paid the employee based on the answers the employee provided on her weekly claim certifications. There was no department error at the time of payment given the weekly claim information. As such, the employee must repay the overpayment of UI benefits.

Standards and Burden of Proof of Concealment

Claimants who file for unemployment insurance benefits are responsible for correctly and completely reporting information for each week they claim benefits, because benefits are initially paid based on the information claimants provide. Claimants who conceal information from the department when filing for benefits may be subject to overpayments and penalties. For unemployment insurance purposes, conceal means "to intentionally mislead or defraud the department by withholding or hiding information or making a false statement or misrepresentation."(12)

A claimant who conceals work performed or wages earned when filing a weekly claim certification is ineligible to receive benefits for the week claimed.(13) In addition, a claimant who conceals work performed, wages earned, or another material fact concerning benefits eligibility when filing a weekly claim certification is ineligible for benefits in an amount equivalent to two, four, or eight times the claimant's weekly benefit rate for each act of concealment.(14) This ineligibility is applied against benefits and weeks of eligibility for which the claimant would otherwise be eligible after the week of concealment.(15) Furthermore, consistent with federal directives, the department assesses a penalty against the claimant in an amount equal to 15 percent of the benefits erroneously paid to the claimant as a result of one or more acts of concealment.(16)

A claimant is presumed eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and the party resisting payment must prove disqualification.(17) The burden to establish that a claimant concealed information is on the department.(18) As a form of fraud, concealment must be proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.(19)

The unemployment insurance law must be "liberally construed to effect unemployment compensation coverage for workers who are economically dependent upon others in respect to their wage-earning status."(20) Laws imposing forfeitures, by contrast, must be strictly construed to narrow the range of acts that will lead to the harsh result of a forfeiture.(21) As a result, concealment will not be found where a claimant makes an honest mistake or misinterprets information received from the department.(22) Concealment requires an intent or design to receive benefits to which the claimant knows he or she is not entitled.(23)

The existence of fraud in the form of concealment must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Because direct proof of a claimant's intent is rarely available, fraud may be proven by indirect (circumstantial) evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the facts. There is a rebuttable presumption that parties intend the natural consequences of their actions.(24)

Analysis of Concealment

In any case where concealment is an issue, the commission first determines whether there is sufficient direct evidence of concealment, such as an admission by the claimant, to conclude that the claimant intended to mislead or defraud the department to receive benefits to which the claimant knew he or she was not entitled. If there is not sufficient direct evidence of concealment, the commission then looks to see whether there is sufficient indirect evidence from which the commission can infer an intent on behalf of the claimant to mislead or defraud the department in order to receive benefits to which the claimant knew he or she was not entitled. Few cases contain direct evidence of concealment; most cases must rely on indirect evidence and the inferences that can be drawn from that evidence to establish concealment.

Review of the indirect evidence generally involves the following inquiry:

1. Did the claimant file a claim for each week at issue?
2. Did the claimant provide incorrect information to the department in filing the claim?
3. Were benefits improperly paid to the claimant as a result of the incorrect information?
4. Do the circumstances create an inference that the claimant intentionally provided incorrect information in order to obtain benefits to which the claimant was not entitled?

Generally, in analyzing whether a claimant obtained benefits to which he or she was not entitled and should be required to repay, only questions (1), (2), and (3) are relevant. However, in analyzing whether a claimant engaged in concealment, which requires a showing by clear and convincing evidence that a claimant intentionally misled or defrauded the department in order to obtain benefits to which the claimant knew he or she was not entitled, and which results in the imposition of a monetary penalty over and above the repayment of benefits, question (4) must be answered as well. An inference of concealment is not created by a mere showing that a claimant provided an incorrect answer when filing a claim.

If the evidence presented by the department does not suggest that the claimant intentionally provided an incorrect answer in order to obtain benefits to which the claimant knew he or she was not entitled, the inquiry ends. No concealment will be found.(25)

If the department presents sufficient evidence to create a reasonable inference that the claimant intended to mislead or defraud the department in order to receive benefits to which the claimant knew he or she was not entitled, the inquiry next turns to whether the explanation offered by the claimant for his or her actions successfully overcomes this inference.

This analysis is case specific, but the factors that may be considered are whether the claimant acted as a reasonable person filing for unemployment insurance benefits or whether the claimant acted in a wilful or reckless disregard of his or her responsibilities as a claimant when filing a claim. If the claimant establishes that it is more probable than not that he or she has made an honest mistake or good faith error in judgment, no concealment will be found. However, the claimant still will be required to repay the benefits which were overpaid. If the claimant fails to establish an honest mistake or good faith error in judgment, the inference of concealment drawn from the evidence remains and the commission will find concealment.

Application of Concealment

As outlined above, the employee's incorrect answer to Question 4 alone is insufficient evidence from which to infer intent to mislead or defraud the department to receive benefits to which the employee was not entitled. Although past commission decisions have referenced a presumption of intent based upon an incorrect answer and receipt of the handbook, the commission notes that those decisions involve a different question ("Did you work?") and the fact that paper copies of Handbooks for Claimants were mailed with initial claims and often at other points during the claims process. Question 4 is a compound question and, as such, is more susceptible to misinterpretation. An inference of intent cannot be made where the only evidence is that the employee answered a compound question incorrectly.

Besides the incorrect answer to the compound Question 4, there is very little additional evidence in the record to create a reasonable inference that the employee intended to mislead or defraud the department in order to receive benefits to which she knew she was not entitled. The employee denied receiving a handbook. She did not receive UI benefit payments for the weeks at issue until June 25, 2013 (week 26). While the employee's testimony regarding the weekly claim questions was in conflict with the department witness' explanation regarding the order of questions, and the ALJ attempted to point out the apparent contradictions in the employee's testimony when compared with the exhibits and the testimony of the department's witness, the employee was insistent that she reported her wages each week despite answering "No" to Question 4. Under these circumstances, the department has not met its burden to present evidence sufficient to reasonably infer an intent to mislead or defraud the department in order to receive benefits to which the employee knew she was not entitled.

Given the finding that the employee did not intentionally conceal her work and wages, she is eligible for partial unemployment benefits for weeks 16, 21 and 22 of 2013 pursuant to the partial benefit formula found at Wis. Stat. § 108.05(3)(a).

The commission therefore finds that, in weeks 15 through 22 of 2013, the employee worked and earned wages, but she did not conceal from the department the work performed and the wages earned in those weeks, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(11), and is thus entitled to partial benefits pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 108.05(3), as set forth above.

The commission further finds that the employee's failure to report work and wages from the employer on her weekly claim certifications for weeks 15 through 22 of 2013, while not fraudulent, prevents waiver of recovery of the overpayment, under Wis. Stat. § 108.22(8)(c) and she must repay the overpaid benefits.

DECISION

The appeal tribunal decisions are modified as to the overpayment amount and, as modified, are affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is entitled to partial unemployment insurance benefits for weeks 16, 21, and 22 as set forth above. The employee is required to repay the unemployment overpayment of $2,481. The employee's future unemployment insurance benefit amount shall not be reduced, and there is no overpayment penalty. The commission remands to the department for adjudication the issue of whether the employee worked and earned wages in week 25 of 2013 and whether she was overpaid any UI benefits for that week which she must repay.

Dated and mailed September 12, 2014

terrybr_urr . doc : 150 : BR 317 : BR 330 : PC 735 : PC 749

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Chairperson

/s/ C. William Jordahl, Commissioner

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

cc: ATTORNEY ANDREW RUBSAM

Appealed to Circuit Court. 

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

(1)( Back ) Jane Shapiro was not a named party for Hearing No. 14601972MW.

(2)( Back ) The ALJ did not make specific findings as to the amount of work performed or the specific wages earned in each week.

(3)( Back ) Although the "DECISION" paragraph references an August 24, 2019 date, the findings paragraph refers to a July 27, 2019 date which is consistent with the department's determination.

(4)( Back ) The UI hearing offices are managed by the Bureau of Legal Affairs for the UI Division, within DWD. ALJs (also referred to as "Appeal Tribunals") are permanent employees of the department, established by the department to "hear and decide disputed claims and resolve liabilities under sub. (2)(b)." Wis. Stat. § 108.09(3).

(5)( Back ) The commission's rules provide that review by the commission shall be based on the record of the case including the evidence previously submitted at hearing before the department. Wis. Admin. Code § LIRC 1.04.

(6)( Back ) The department witness testified that she did not believe the employee previously filed for UI benefits. The employee testified that she had not previously filed for benefits.

(7)( Back ) A booklet which explains the UI claim process; it also lists telephone numbers which a claimant may use to contact the department when questions arise.

(8)( Back ) The department witness testified that the department stopped mailing paper copies of the Handbook for Claimants as of June 20, 2013.

(9)( Back ) The wording of this question was in effect since week 43 of 2012, the calendar week ending October 27, 2012. The department's question was modified to reflect a law change requiring that the department consider sick pay, bonus pay, or commission in addition to work performed and wages earned in calculating a worker's partial eligibility. The prior question simply asked whether an individual worked. See UID 12-26, dated October 31, 2012.

(10)( Back ) The specific hours worked were not recorded on this form; the only notation was if the work was equal or greater than 32 hours.

(11)( Back ) Wis. Stat. § 108.05(3)(a) provides in material part,

. . . if an eligible employee earns wages in a given week, the first $30 of the wages shall be disregarded and the employee's applicable weekly benefit payment shall be reduced by 67% of the remaining amount, except that no such employee is eligible for benefits if the employee's benefit payment would be less than $5 for any week.

(12)( Back ) Wis. Stat. § 108.04(11)(g).

(13)( Back ) Wis. Stat. § 108.05(3)(d).

(14)( Back ) Wis. Stat. § 108.04(11)(a), (b) and (be).

(15)( Back ) Wis. Stat. § 108.04(11)(bm).

(16)( Back ) Wis. Stat. § 108.04(11)(bh).

(17)( Back ) Wis. Stat. § 108.02(11); Kansas City Star Co. v. DILHR, 60 Wis. 2d 591, 602, 211 N.W.2d 488 (1973).

(18)( Back ) In re Scott Lynch, UI Dec. Hearing No. 10404406AP (LIRC Mar. 11, 2011); Holloway v. Mahler Enter., Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 11606291MW (LIRC Nov. 4, 2011).

(19)( Back ) Kamuchey v. Trzesniewski, 8 Wis. 2d 94, 98, 98 N.W.2d 403 (1959); Schroeder v. Drees, 1 Wis. 2d 106, 112, 83 N.W.2d 707 (1957).

(20)( Back ) Princess House, Inc. v. DILHR, 111 Wis. 2d 46, 62, 330 N.W.2d 169 (1983).

(21)( Back ) Liberty Loan Corp. & Affiliates v. Eis, 69 Wis. 2d 642, 649, 230 N.W.2d 617 (1975).

(22)( Back ) In re Joseph Hein, Jr., UI Dec. Hearing No. 00605374MW (LIRC Dec. 13, 2001); In re Scott Lynch, supra.

(23)( Back ) Karandjeff v. Cmty. Living Alliance Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 11611430MW (LIRC June 20, 2012); Holloway v. Mahler, supra, and the cases cited therein; In re Nestor Gutierrez, UI Dec. Hearing No. 00005766MD (LIRC July 19, 2002).

(24)( Back ) Krueger v. LIRC & Gen. Motors Assembly Div., No. 81-CV-559A (Wis. Cir. Ct. Rock Cnty. Dec. 3, 1982). See, also, Muller v. State, 94 Wis. 2d 450, 469, 289 N.W.2d 570 (1980)(when there are no circumstances to prevent or rebut the presumption, the law presumes that a reasonable person intends all the natural, probable, and usual consequences of his deliberate acts).

(25)( Back ) In re Leonard Miszewski, UI Dec. Hearing No. 12401605AP (LIRC Nov. 30, 2012). 

uploaded 2014/09/26