16. Procedures/Appeals

Szypa v. Kasler Electric Company – 16.07

Szypa v Kasler Electric Company
Digest no. 16.07

Sections 33 & 34

Cite as: Szypa v. Kasler Electric Company, 136 Mich. App. 116 (1984).

Appeal pending: No
Date of decision: July 9, 1984
Court: Court of Appeals of Michigan

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where the notice of hearing limits itself to an issue, where neither party requests an adjournment for further development of additional issues, where the Board of Review does not remand for the taking of further testimony on such additional issues and, where a knowing and informed waiver of an adjournment of the referee hearing was not obtained from the parties, the decision of the referee must be limited to the issue contained in the notice of hearing.

FACTS: The Referee limited his decision to the issue contained in the notice of hearing which was voluntary leaving. Employer attempted to introduce evidence of claimant’s misconduct. Employer appealed to the Board of Review. The appeal did not mention the misconduct discharge issue. The Board of Review decided that claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with work. The Circuit Court reversed the Board of Review because the decision was based upon an issue not properly before the Board.

DECISION: The Referee’s decision was appropriate based upon the admissible evidence presented; and the decision of the Circuit Court reversing the Board of Review was correct.

RATIONALE: ” … if the notice of hearing does not place the parties on notice of an issue which is raised at the referee hearing the hearing shall either be adjourned for a reasonable time if requested by either party, or in any event, evidence shall not be taken on the issue nor a decision be made thereon unless a knowing and informed waiver of adjournment is obtained from the parties.

“The employer and the referee had the opportunity to adjourn the hearing to allow the employee to gather rebuttal evidence on the misconduct issue and they failed to do so. The Board had the authority to remand the case for further testimony and it failed to do so. The employee had the right to assume that the only issue before the referee was whether he had voluntarily quit … ”

EDITORS NOTE: Also see Rule 1410 of MCAC/MAHS Rules of Practice (R. 792.11410) which has been revised since Szypa. (SG – 06/16)

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

16. Procedures/Appeals

Donahoo v. Michigan Department of Social Services & Michigan Employment Security Commission – 16.10

Donahoo v. Michigan Department of Social Services &– Michigan Employment Security Commission
Digest No. 16.10

Section 421.32a(2)

Cite as: Donahoo v Mich Dep’t of Soc Servs, Unpublished opinion of the Washtenaw County Circuit Court, issued February 15, 1980 (Docket No. 79-17785-AE).

Court: Circuit Court of Washtenaw County
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Leonard Donahoo
Employer: State of Michigan, Department of Social Services
Date of decision: February 15, 1980

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: The Agency’s failure to serve Claimant with a determination notice prevented the 20-day statutory appeal period from triggering. Because the appeal limitation was not triggered, Claimant’s appeal was timely.

FACTS: The order provides no facts, and I could not find the docket, so as to read briefing. One can infer this was a good cause for reopening case under 32a(2) where the claimant appealed after the 20-day (now 30-day) period, but before the one-year statute of limitations. The Agency, one can infer, demurred claimant’s appeal and the adjudicating body (ALJ/MCAC) sustained the Agency’s position that the appeal was not timely. Claimant appealed to the Circuit Court.

DECISION: Because the Agency didn’t send claimant a determination, the court found Claimant had good cause for reopening for lack of adequate notice. The court further held that without a determination by the Agency, Claimant’s appeal window could not be triggered.

RATIONALE: Again, there is only an order, so the rationale is non-existent. One can infer that this hinged on a due process argument. Without proper notice claimant had no way to know the Agency was taking action against him.

Digest author: Travis Miller, Michigan Law, Class of 2018
Digest updated: December 23, 2017