Buxton v Chrysler Corp
Digest no. 18.02
Cite as: Buxton v Chrysler Corp, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued June 1, 1984 (Docket No. B74 12158 49663).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Clark W. Buxton
Employer: Chrysler Corporation
Docket no.: B74 12158 49663
Date of decision: June 1, 1984
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The provision of finality in Section 32(b) “applies only to whether the employer is entitled to a credit to its rating account and not to benefits paid to the claimant.”
FACTS: The claimant was paid benefits as a result of the employer’s late response to the Commission’s request for information to determine the claimant’s entitlement to unemployment benefits. The claimant was ordered to make restitution pursuant to Section 62(a) for the benefits paid prior to the employer’s response.
DECISION: “The benefits paid claimant were properly subject to restitution pursuant to Section 62(a).”
RATIONALE: The Court affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court which held:
“The language of Section 32(b) is specifically limited to the ‘non-complying employer’. Had the legislature meant for this section to apply to benefits paid to a claimant, it would have so stated, as it has done in other sections of the act, i.e., Sections 62(a) and 32(d). The Court is of the opinion that Section 32(b) applies only to whether the employer is entitled to a credit to its rating account where benefits were paid as a result of its untimely submission of required information. Section 20(a) reinforces and compliments Section 32(b).”
“Accordingly, the decision of the MESC Appeal Board … is hereby AFFIRMED.”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90