08. Filing for Benefits, Reporting

MESC v Wisneski – 8.04

MESC v Wisneski
Digest no. 8.04

Section 28(1)(b)

Cite as: MESC v Wisneski, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued March 14, 1980 (No. 78-8670-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Sylvester Wisneski
Employer: Inland Tool and Manufacturing, Inc.
Docket no.: B77-4712-54924
Date of decision: March 14, 1980

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Good cause in late filing situations means an inability to personally appear at an Unemployment Agency branch office. The claimant had a duty to go to the branch office to verify the employer’s advice.

FACTS: Claimant’s job terminated without notice on July 31, 1976. On leaving, the claimant received checks of one month’s salary and 2 weeks vacation pay. The employer told claimant he had to wait 6 weeks before filing for unemployment benefits because of the 2 checks. As a result, claimant did not file for benefits until September 15, 1976. The Referee held the claimant ineligible for benefits for the 6 week period prior to September 15, 1976, and the employer’s incorrect advice did not satisfy the good cause requirement for late filing.

DECISION: The claimant is ineligible for benefits for the period of July 25, 1976 to September 11, 1976 because he lacked good cause for late filing.

RATIONALE: MESC Rule 210 defines “good cause” as a “justifiable reason determined in accordance with a standard of conduct expected of an individual acting as a reasonable person in light of all the circumstances” and sets out examples. The court found in applying the Rule that “good cause” “deals with situations a claimant has no control over, reliance on the erroneous advice of an employer certainly does not fall within this category.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99