Claimant
Frank Lucente received a “redetermination” in November 2010, finding that he
obtained unemployment benefits fraudulently from February to June 2010, but he
did not realize that he had been assessed penalties until late 2015, and his
appeal at that point was denied as untimely.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) found good cause for Lucente’s delay,
but rejected his appeal on the merits.
The Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission (MCAC) reversed, finding that the Unemployment Insurance
Agency’s 2010 “redetermination” was untimely under MCL
421.32a. The circuit court
affirmed. Claimant Michael Herzog
received a “redetermination” in October 2017, that he received unemployment
benefits fraudulently from October 2016 to March 2017. The ALJ found that the “redetermination” was
void because Herzog never received a determination. The MCAC and circuit court affirmed. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion,
reversed the circuit court decisions. The
Court of Appeals held that because the Unemployment Insurance Agency
did not proceed under MCL 421.32a, but rather recouped wrongfully-paid benefits
under MCL 421.62, the agency was not subject to the time restrictions under MCL
421.32a. The Court of Appeals further
held that the captioning of the determination as a “redetermination” was not
fatal to the agency’s
ability to recoup fraudulently-obtained benefits under MCL 421.62. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal
to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis
of §§ 32, 32a, and 62 of the Michigan Employment Security Act of 1936
(MESA), MCL 421.1 et seq., when
it held that: (1) the Unemployment
Insurance Agency is not required to comply with the time requirements set forth
in § 32a when seeking to recoup payment of fraudulently obtained benefits
under § 62 of the Act; and (2) the label that the agency used on its
decisions was not determinative of its ability to seek to recoup improperly
obtained benefits.