07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Ross v. Acrisure P1, LLC – 7.39

Ross v. Acrisure P1, LLC

Digest no. 7.39

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Ross v. Acrisure P1, LLC, Unpublished Opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, Issued August 14, 2014 (Docket no. 315347).

Appeal Pending: No
Claimant: Michael T. Ross (Appellee)
Employer: Hill’s Crate Mill (Appellants: UIA)
Docket no. 315347
Date of decision: Aug. 14, 2014

View/download the full decision

Holding: Claimant’s receipt of social security benefits did not preclude him from asserting that he was willing and able to work for purposes of receiving unemployment benefits.

Facts: Claimant’s employer closed in 2009. In December 2009, claimant applied to the Agency for unemployment benefits, and he began to receive those benefits. Although initially claimant’s application for SSDI benefits was denied, claimant successfully appealed that decision on September 21, 2011. On November 29, 2011, claimant informed the Agency that the SSA determined that he was disabled. As a result, on December 20, 2011, the Agency issued a determination informing claimant that he was not eligible for unemployment given his receipt of SSDI benefits.  In February 2012, an administrative law judge upheld the Agency’s denial of benefits and demand for repayment as well as the imposition of penalties. The MCAC affirmed. The circuit court overruled, stating it was “unable to find merit in the [MCAC’s] finding that the claimant’s application for social security disability was inconsistent with his testimony that he was ready and able to work in connection with his application for unemployment benefits.”

Decision: The Agency issued a determination informing claimant that he was not eligible for unemployment given his receipt of SSDI benefits. The MCAC affirmed. The circuit court reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court.

Rationale: There are two broad considerations relevant to determining whether judicial estoppel should prevent an individual from bringing claims under two statutory schemes when there is a potential that the claims involved may be inconsistent. First, courts consider whether there is an inherent conflict between the statutory schemes, such that a negative presumption should apply against the possibility of an individual pursuing both types of claims. See Cleveland v Policy Management Systems Corp, 526 U.S. 795, 802-803 (1999) (finding no inherent conflict between receipt of SSDI benefits and a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and rejecting application of a negative presumption). Second, courts consider whether a claimant’s purely factual assertions in the respective contexts genuinely conflict with one another, and whether an individual can explain any apparent contradiction.

There is not an inherent conflict between the statutory schemes such that a finding of disability for purposes of SSDI necessarily precludes the possibility of also receiving unemployment.  Nothing in claimant’s specific factual assertions in each arena which can be considered wholly inconsistent.

Digest author: James C. Robinson (Michigan Law ’16)
Digest updated: 3/15

09. Preservation of Credit Weeks

Heath v CPG Products-Fundimensions – 9.04

Heath v CPG Products-Fundimensions
Digest no. 9.04

Section 28a

Cite as: Heath v CPG Products-Fundimensions, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued February 25, 1985 (Docket No. 83-3950 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Gloria J. Heath
Employer: CPG Products-Fundimensions
Docket no.: B82 02335 82671
Date of decision: February 25, 1985

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: “The public is charged with constructive knowledge of the provisions of statutes of the State of Michigan.”

FACTS: The claimant was disabled for nine months prior to her application for benefits and did not know that she was required to preserve her credit weeks pursuant to MCL 421.28(a) within 45 days of the end of her disability or layoff. The information booklet given at the time of her application for benefits failed to contain information regarding preservation of credit weeks.

DECISION: The claimant has insufficient credit weeks to establish a benefit year.

RATIONALE: “The record is clear that claimant had insufficient credit weeks to obtain benefits and failed to apply for preservation of the credit weeks as required by the act. The court cannot say the MESC erred when it merely applied the plain and unambiguous language of the statute in effect at the time of claimant’s application for benefits. The excuse for her failure to act that claimant advances on appeal are raised for the first time on appeal and do not state legally sufficient excuses for not complying with the act. The MESC had no duty to inform claimant of the requirement that she preserve her credit weeks. Further, the public is charged with constructive knowledge of the provisions of statutes of the State of Michigan. The failure of the MESC to insert this information in the booklet given to claimant during the time in question does not relieve claimant from constructive notice of the provisions.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 6/91