Categories
18. Restitution, Waiver, Fraud

Burch v Chapel Hill Cemetery Development – 18.08

Burch v Chapel Hill Cemetery Development
Digest no. 18.08

Section 62

Authors Note: The holding in this case relies heavily on the discretionary nature of waivers in place at the time of the decision. The legislature made waivers mandatory in October of 2013.  This case should not apply to waivers adjudicated after October 26, 2013.

Cite as: Burch v Chapel Hill Cemetery Dev, unpublished opinion of the Ingham Circuit Court, issued November 26, 1990 (Docket No. 88-61881-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ronald Burch
Employer: Chapel Hill Cemetery Development
Docket no.: B87 10225 106685W
Date of decision: November 26, 1990

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: When a claimant knew or should have known he was not entitled to the benefits he was receiving the claimant cannot claim administrative clerical error as a basis for restitution waiver.

FACTS: The claimant had been issued a determination which indicated he was entitled to 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. Because of a computer error, the claimant received 45 weeks of benefits. When the Commission discovered claimant had received an additional 19 weeks worth of benefits it sought restitution. The claimant asserted he should be exempt from the restitution requirement because he had received the additional benefits as the result of an administrative clerical error.

DECISION: The claimant was required to make restitution.

RATIONALE: Section 62(a) of the MES Act provides that the Commission may waive restitution. As one of its internal guidelines the Commission provides that it will waive restitution for payment resulting from an administrative clerical error.

While in the instant matter a clerical error had been made it was found that the claimant had actual knowledge he was only supposed to receive 26 weeks of benefits and therefore could not claim to be exempt from the restitution requirement for the remaining 19 weeks.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
 10/2013

Categories
18. Restitution, Waiver, Fraud

MESC v Miller – 18.03

MESC v Miller
Digest no. 18.03

Section 62(a)

Authors Note: The holding in this case relies heavily on the discretionary nature of waivers in place at the time of the decision. The legislature made waivers mandatory in October of 2013.  This case should not apply to waivers adjudicated after October 26, 2013.

Cite as: MESC v Miller, unpublished opinion of the Tuscola Circuit Court, issued June 13, 1983(Docket No. 82-004889 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: James Miller
Employer: Maiers Motor Freight
Docket no.: B81 97417 80745
Date of decision: June 13, 1983

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The Board of Review has no statutory authority to waiver restitution under Section 62(a).

FACTS: The claimant was paid benefits pursuant to a Referee’s decision which held the claimant not disqualified under the labor dispute provisions of the Act. The Board of Review reversed the Referee’s decision, but waived the repayment of benefits under Section 62(a).

DECISION: The case is remanded to the MESC to exercise its discretion concerning the waiver of restitution.

RATIONALE: “The Court having carefully reviewed the record and heard oral argument, is of the opinion that neither the Michigan Employment Security Act nor case law gives the Board of Review the right to waive restitution sua sponte and that therefore the decision of the Board of Review waiving restitution on its own initiative is contrary to law.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
 10/2013

Categories
18. Restitution, Waiver, Fraud

Drayton v Showcase – 18.01

Drayton v Showcase
Digest no. 18.01

Section 62(a)

Cite as: Drayton v Showcase, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued April 6, 1983 (Docket No. B78 15173 67544).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Denise Drayton
Employer: Showcase
Docket no.: B78 15173 67544
Date of decision: April 6, 1983

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The 1980 amendment to Section 62(a) is to be given retroactive effect.

FACTS: The claimant was determined eligible for unemployment benefits and received $268.00. On November 7, 1978, “The MESC determined that claimant was, in fact, ineligible for such benefits and ordered her to repay the $268.00.”

By virtue of the 1980 amendment in Section 62(a) effective January 1, 1981, the MESC was given discretion to waive restitution.

DECISION: The MESC must exercise “its discretion on the restitution issue …”

RATIONALE: “The Michigan Employment Security Act is remedial. It’s primary purpose is to relieve the stress of economic insecurity. Godsol v Unemployment Compensation Comm, 302 Mich 652 (1942)Michigan Employment Security Comm v Wayne State University, 66 Mich App 26 (1975), lv den 396 Mich 857 (1976). Where an amendment is designed to correct an existing law, it is generally remedial and will be given retroactive effect. Lahti v Fosterling, 357 Mich 578 (1959).

“Because the amendment is to be construed retroactively, the MESC had the discretion to waive restitution. However, it has not exercised its discretion.

“We are remanding this case to the MESC to exercise its discretion and to reevaluate its decision in the light of the amendment and this opinion. The MESC must consider [claimant’s] indigence in this case in exercising its discretion.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
11/90