Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Garza v Hilltop Orchards & Nurseries, Inc. 18.05

Section 62(a)

RESTITUTION, Good Cause, Administrative clerical error, Late protest

CITE AS: Garza v Hilltop Orchards & Nurseries IncGarza v Hilltop Orchards & Nurseries IncGarza v Hilltop Orchards & Nurseries Inc., No. 15-485, Van Buren Circuit Court (December 17, 1981).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Silvestra J. Garza

Employer: Hilltop Orchards & Nurseries, Inc.

Docket No: B79 13459 70571

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: An administrative clerical error is good cause for a reconsideration of a determination no longer subject to review due to expiration of the protest period.

FACTS: The Commission held that claimant was disqualified and must serve a 13 week requalification period. Claimant's benefit entitlement was shown reduced from 16 to 3 weeks. After claimant completed requalification requirements, a determination was issued which erroneously showed that claimant was entitled to 16 weeks of benefits rather than 3 weeks. Claimant thus received 16 benefit checks. Upon receipt of information from the employer that an error had been made in claimant's entitlement, the Commission issued a reconsideration holding that claimant must repay the excess benefits.

DECISION: The claimant must repay the excess benefits.

RATIONALE: "The evidence shows a reduction was contemplated by the Commission but was not consummated. There is no doubt that the Commission determined that [claimant] must wait 13 weeks for her benefits. When [claimant] became entitled to her benefits, the very document which granted 16 weeks of benefits recognized that she had requalified after 13 weeks, but failed to make the required reduction. That the benefits were not reduced according to MCLA 421.219(4); MSA 17.531 (4), can only be attributed to an administrative clerical error, since no new determination or redetermination was made that [claimant] should not have had to fulfill the 13 week requalification period, and it was, therefore, clear that the statutory formula should have been applied. Further, at the point at which the formula should have been applied to reduce the benefit entitlement, the act of reduction is a statutory requirement, not a discretionary decision."


3, 7, d5:A

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page