Reggie D. Gilbertson, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Reggie D. Gilbertson, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. A04-2309, Court of Appeals Unpublished, August 23, 2005.

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A04-2309

 

Reggie D. Gilbertson,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

 

Filed ­­­August 23, 2005

Affirmed

Dietzen, Judge

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development

Agency File No. 13378 04

 

Reggie D. Gilbertson, 742 Crosby Drive, Hudson, WI 54016 (pro se relator)

 

Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, E200 Fist National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent)

 

            Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Klaphake, Judge; and Dietzen, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

 

DIETZEN, Judge

Relator challenges the senior unemployment review judge's (SURJ) decision denying him unemployment benefits, arguing that he had good cause for failing to file continued requests for benefits.  Because the record supports the decision of the SURJ that relator did not have good cause for failing to file continued requests for benefits, we affirm.

FACTS

Relator Reggie D. Gilbertson worked at the Ford Motor assembly plant from November 1994 to March 2004, when his employment was terminated.  Relator established an unemployment benefits account and received benefits for the week ending March 20, 2004.  Between March 23 and June 7, 2004, relator failed to file for and did not receive any unemployment benefits.

            When relator returned to work at the Ford Motor assembly plant in June 2004, he was told by the union president that he was entitled to receive unemployment benefits during the period of his unemployment.  Relator then filed for unemployment benefits for the period between March 23 and June 7, 2004, but that request was denied.  Relator challenged the decision, and an appeal hearing was held in September 2004.

Relator testified at the hearing that an employee of the Workforce Center in Red Wing told him that he was disqualified from receiving benefits because his employment had been terminated.  As a result, relator did not file continued requests for benefits.  He admitted that he had read the unemployment benefits workbook, which states, in both bold and underlined letters, "You must call TELECLAIM as instructed to maintain an active account even if wage information, benefit determinations or an appeal are pending."  The workbook then adds, "If you forget or do not call TELECLAIM as scheduled, to answer the questions regarding your ongoing eligibility for the two-week period, you will be denied benefits for that period." 

The ULJ found that relator had not timely filed for benefits because "he understood he would not be eligible."  But the ULJ concluded that the instructions in the workbook were clear, and relator did not have good cause for failing to file continued requests for benefits.  The ULJ noted that "[i]f [relator] would have exerted a reasonable effort in reading the instructions, he would have understood the filing requirements."  Consequently, the ULJ concluded that relator was not entitled to benefits for the period between March 23 and June 7, 2004. 

            Relator filed an appeal to the SURJ, who concluded that the determinative facts were not in dispute and declined to conduct further proceedings.  The SURJ adopted the ULJ's findings of fact and decision as the final findings of fact and decision of the Department of Employment and Economic Development.  This appeal by writ of certiorari followed.

D E C I S I O N

            On certiorari appeal, we review the decision of the SURJ with particular deference.  Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995).[1]  The SURJ's factual findings are reviewed in the light most favorable to the findings and will not be disturbed "as long as there is evidence that reasonably tends to sustain those findings."  Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).  But we exercise independent judgment with respect to questions of law.  Ress v. Abbott Northwestern
Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989). 

            A benefits applicant must file a continued biweekly request for benefits or the benefit account will become inactive.  Minn. Stat. § 268.086, subd. 4 (2004).  The continued request must be filed "within 14 days following the week in which the date required occurred" or the request will not be accepted.  Id.  But the continued request may be filed late if the applicant has "good cause."  Id., subd. 8 (2004).  "Good cause" is "a compelling substantial reason that would have prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence" from filing a timely request.  Id., subd. 9 (2004).  "Good cause" does not include reasons such as "forgetfulness, loss of the continued biweekly request form, having returned to work, or inability to file a continued biweekly request for unemployment benefits by the method designated if the applicant was aware of the inability and did not make diligent effort to have the method of filing a . . . request changed by the commissioner."  Id.

            Relator argues that he failed to file continued requests for benefits because he did not understand the unemployment benefits workbook and a Workforce Center employee told him he was not eligible to receive benefits.  But good cause under the statute requires a substantially compelling reason from the standpoint of a reasonable person acting with due diligence.  Here, the workbook clearly explains that even if an applicant's right to receive benefits is in question, in order to remain eligible for benefits, the applicant must file a continued request or call Teleclaim, and failure to do so will result in denial.  In light of the clarity of the workbook's instructions, relator's argument is without merit.

Relator's reliance on a statement from a Workforce Center employee is also without merit.  Good cause is "a compelling substantial reason that would have prevented" a reasonable person from filing in a timely manner.  Minn. Stat. § 268.086, subd. 9 (emphasis added).  Here, nothing prevented relator from filing; he was entirely capable of filing.  He chose not to file on time by taking the advice of the Workforce Center employee at face value despite the workbook's instructions.

Based on the record, the decision of the SURJ is adequately supported.  Therefore, we conclude that relator is not entitled to benefits for the period between March 23 and June 7, 2004.

Affirmed.

[1] Legislative amendments to the unemployment benefits statutes codified in 2004 substituted the term "senior unemployment review judge" for "commissioner's representative."  2004 Minn. Laws, ch. 183, 871.