Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Alam v Brown AS Development Co 16.44

Section 32a

PROCEDURE, Time limits, Proof of service, Board Rule 104

CITE AS: Alam v Brown AS Development Co., Oakland Circuit Court No. 96-535902-AE (January 21, 1998).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Joseph Alam

Employer: Brown A. S. Development Co.

Docket No. B95 02284-136203W

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: There must be evidence that the determination was served on the claimant for the appeal period to run. Service on the claimant's attorney without service on the claimant was insufficient.

FACTS: The claimant received regular unemployment insurance and federal supplemental benefits in 1990 and 1991. In 1993, the MESC determined the claimant had received benefits fraudulently and owed restitution of $8,250.00 and penalties of $2,000. Allegedly, the Commission mailed the determination to the claimant on April 15, 1993, and a copy to the claimant's attorney on November 21, 1994. The copy mailed to the claimant's attorney was incomplete. The claimant's attorney filed a protest of the determination December 28, 1994. The Commission found the protest was not timely and issued a Notice of Denial of Request for Reconsideration. On appeal by the claimant, the Notice of Denial was affirmed by the Referee. The Referee's decision was affirmed by the Board.

DECISION: Remanded for a Referee hearing on the merits of the determination.

RATIONALE: Under Rule 104 of the Rules of Practice, the claimant and his attorney were entitled to be served with the determination. There was no witness testimony that the determination had been served on the claimant. The evidence offered by the Commission was inadequate to conclude service had been properly effectuated. Moreover, the copy of the determination served on the claimant's attorney was incomplete. Therefore, the time period for protesting the determination had not run.


12, 21: L

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page