Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Herman v Chrysler Corporation 16.04

Section 32a

APPEAL, Timeliness of request for reconsideration to Commission, Newly discovered evidence, Good cause

CITE AS: Herman v Chrysler Corporation, 106 Mich App 709 (1981).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: James F. Herman, et al

Employer: Chrysler Corporation

Docket No: B74 12159 49662

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: A "late discovery that a good case existed for appealing the MESC ruling" is not "newly discovered evidence."

FACTS: "[Claimant] was out of this state seeking work when the October 15, 1974, determination was delivered to her home but her mother informed her over the telephone that it arrived. [Claimant] did not file a timely request for reconsideration of the October 15 determination. However, sometime later she inadvertently saw one of the other [claimants] and an attorney and was informed by them that there might be a basis for an appeal. Therefore, on March 1, 1975, she filed a request for a reconsideration with MESC."

DECISION: Claimant's appeal is dismissed.

RATIONALE: "[Claimant's] 'newly discovered evidence' consists of her late discovery from another claimant and her attorney that a good case existed for appealing the MESC rulings pertaining to her case. This, however, is not 'newly discovered evidence.'"

"[Claimant] received actual notice of the MESC order disqualifying her for benefits in a telephone conversation with her mother. She did not attempt to appeal that decision within the 15-day appeal period. All facts pertinent to determining whether she should or should not have appealed the MESC redetermination were available to her at the time that she received notice of her disqualification for benefits. She chose not to seek legal assistance at that time. Her late attempt to do so does not amount to 'newly discovered evidence' constituting good cause to reopen her case."



Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page