Section 32a
PROCEDURE, Timeliness of protest, Good cause for redetermination, Estoppel
CITE AS: Guthaus v St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Oakland Circuit Court, No. 95-492777-AE (August 25, 1995).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Martha Guthaus
Employer: St. Joseph Mercy Hospital
Docket No. B94 01685-129107W
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Reliance on the intercession of a state senator or others, while failing to file a timely protest, is not good cause for reconsideration. The Agency is not estopped from denying reconsideration when the Agency did nothing to deter the claimant from protesting within the thirty day period.
FACTS: Claimant received benefits after being laid off by one of two employers. The claimant did not disclose her employment with the second employer. The second employer notified the Agency of the claimant's earnings. The Agency found the claimant had committed intentional misrepresentation by failing to disclose her earnings with the second employer. On December 29, 1992, the Agency issued a determination holding the claimant liable for restitution and a penalty. The claimant received the determination timely and called the UA. She was told to refer to the appeal rights on the back. She read her appeal rights but chose to contact her state senator instead of following UA procedures. The claimant's senator and her attorney contacted the UA on her behalf to question the basis for the determination, but neither filed a protest on claimant's behalf. The claimant failed to protest until November 1, 1993.
DECISION: The claimant did not establish good cause for reconsideration.
RATIONALE: The claimant was aware of the time limit for protesting the determination. She did not have any newly discovered material evidence nor was there a clerical error which would justify reconsideration. The claimant chose not to protest because of her frustration with the Agency. Although claimant contends she relied on her senator and her attorney and believed the matter would be reviewed, she was not told by Unemployment Agency officials that she did not need to appeal within the thirty day protest period. There is no evidence anyone from the Unemployment Agency did anything within the thirty day period which caused her to forgo filing a timely application for redetermination.
7/99
22, 24: F