By Payroll and Entitlements Editorial Staff
In a trio of consolidated cases, claimants who had applied for, and received benefits, but falsely certified that they were still unemployed after starting new full-time employment, were ruled to be liable for restitution and penalties for fraudulently obtaining benefits. In each instance, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, which had ruled that the agency could not obtain restitution and penalties because it failed to meet the deadline in the statute of limitations. The court rejected the reasoning that the agency failed to seek restitution within the time limits imposed by Sec. 32(a) of the Act by stressing that it was not proceeding under that statute, but rather under another part of the Act, Sec. 62, which allowed the agency to recoup wrongfully paid benefits within three years of the date a claimant received those benefits. Because the agency was proceeding under Sec. 62, it did not err in failing to comply with Sec. 32(a). Moreover, the agency's decisions were not rendered invalid by being labeled "redeterminations" (DLRA/UIA v. Frank Lucente and Dart Properties, LLC, Mich. Ct. of App., Nos. 342080, 345074, 345943, October 15, 2019).
Interested in submitting an article?
Submit your information to us today!Learn More