Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Royster v Chrysler Corp 16.27

Section 32a, 62(b)

RESTITUTION, Time limits, One year limit, Fraud

CITE AS: Royster v Chrysler Corp, 366 Mich 415 (1962).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Turner Royster

Employer: Chrysler Corp

Docket No: B59 1749 23274

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Section 32a does not bar a protest of claimant's eligibility made more than 1 year after the payment of benefits based upon fraud.

FACTS: Claimant was laid off January 10, 1958. On January 15, 1958 he filed a claim for benefits. Claimant was recalled and worked the week ending January 25, 1958. He received wages of $87.78. He was laid off again on January 25, 1958.

On January 29, 1958 the claimant appeared at an MESC office and reported he had not worked and had no earnings for the weeks ending January 18, and January 25, 1958. Based on his representation, the Commission paid him benefits for the week ending January 25, 1958.

Chrysler discovered the discrepancy on February 4, 1959. Chrysler sought a redetermination of ineligibility for that week - more than one year after the determination of eligibility.

DECISION: The Commission did have jurisdiction of the misrepresentation issue. The claimant was subject to the fraud provisions of Section 62(b).

RATIONALE: In contrast to the eligibility issues which were in question when the claimant was paid benefits in January, 1958, "the presently disputed issue is whether plaintiff intentionally concealed his earnings for the week in question, and ... it became the disputed issue only after defendant's protest on February 4, 1959." The employer's position is supported by Lee v ESC, 346 Mich 171. (See Digest 16.26)



Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page