Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Langhart v Westside Automotive Technology 16.35

Section 33, 36

PROCEDURE, Right to counsel, Board Rule 207

CITE AS: Langhart v Westside Automotive Technology, No. 71190 (Mich App April 26, 1984).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: James L. Langhart

Employer: Westside Automotive Technology

Docket No: B81 127463 RO1 80896

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The Referee's failure to advise claimant orally of his right to counsel, where the Notice of Hearing contained such information thereon, and claimant's failure to present evidence because of lack of counsel, did not constitute a good and valid reason for allowing a rehearing.

FACTS: The Referee sent the claimant a Notice of Hearing on which were printed instructions, including the claimant's right to representation by counsel if he chose to have counsel. The claimant appeared at the hearing without counsel. The Referee did not orally advise claimant of his right to be represented by an agent or attorney.

DECISION: Request for rehearing denied. The court affirmed claimant's disqualification for benefits pursuant to Section 29(1)(b) of the Act.

RATIONALE: "We do not interpret R421.1207(9) to require that the referee orally inform the claimant of his right to have an attorney present. The referee here explained the procedure to be used, informed plaintiff of his right to cross-examine witnesses and to present his own witnesses. The referee excluded certain hearsay testimony ... and questioned plaintiff and defense witnesses to clarify their testimony. We find that the referee complied fully with the promulgated rules."


5, 15:C

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page