Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Van Tuhl v Henry Vroom and Son, Inc 16.19

Section 32, 32a

APPEALS, Failure to protest determination, Collateral estoppel, Final order, Issue before referee, Res judicata, Restitution determination

CITE AS: Van Tuhl v Henry Vroom and Son, Inc, No. 80-019-307 AE, Wayne Circuit Court (October 31, 1980).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Richard Van Tuhl

Employer: Henry Vroom and Son, Inc.

Docket No: EB78 07923 67964

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: A disqualification determination which has become final may not be reopened by protesting a restitution determination which results from the disqualification.

FACTS: The claimant did not protest the determination which found him disqualified for misconduct discharge. He did protest a subsequent determination which held that he had received benefits during a period of disqualification.

DECISION: The disqualification determination is final.

RATIONALE: "As the determination had become final, the only issue before the Referee in Case Number EB78 07923 67964, which is the disqualified matter of this appeal, was whether the claimant had received benefits during the period of requalification, which have to be repaid."

"The Referee properly did not consider the question raised by the determination of June 19, 1978, that is, the separation issue stemming from the claimant's discharge by the Hale Area Schools. In Roman Cleanser Co. v Murphy, 386 Mich 598, 703-704 (1972), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel applied to administrative matters, and an issue once settled in a determination, redetermination, or decision, which has become final is not subject to collateral attack."


3, 14:NA

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page