This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Reggie D. Gilbertson,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed August 23, 2005
Department of Employment and Economic Development
Agency File No. 13378 04
Reggie D. Gilbertson,
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.
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.
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.
at the hearing that an employee of the
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
certiorari appeal, we review the decision of the SURJ with particular
deference. Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (
Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (
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.
argues that he failed to file continued requests for benefits because he did
not understand the unemployment benefits workbook and a
on a statement from a
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.
Legislative amendments to the unemployment benefits statutes codified in 2004
substituted the term “senior unemployment review judge” for “commissioner’s