This opinion will be unpublished and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
Hoangson D. Tran,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed March 14, 2006
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 1859004
Hoangson D. Tran, 7531 Upper
Linda A. Holmes, Department of
Employment and Economic Development,
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
On certiorari appeal from the determination of a senior unemployment review judge, Hoangson Tran challenges the denial of his application to establish a second account for unemployment benefits after his first account expired. Because Tran has not met the requirements for establishing a second benefit account, we affirm.
F A C T S
Hoangson Tran was employed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation from July 1998 until October 2003. Following his discharge on October 3, 2003, he established an unemployment-benefits account that became effective on October 5, 2003, and expired on October 2, 2004. The benefit-account determination provided for a weekly benefit of $478 and a maximum benefit of $12,428. Tran received benefits of $478 weekly until April 4, 2004, when his maximum benefit entitlement was exhausted.
On October 3, 2004, Tran filed an application for unemployment benefits and attempted to establish a second benefit account. The Department of Employment and Economic Development notified him on October 6, 2004, that he was not eligible for benefits. The notice stated that Tran could appeal the determination until November 5, 2004. Tran did not appeal; he instead wrote to the department on November 23, 2004, “to file a formal complaint” because he “did not receive any payments since filing for unemployment benefits for a new benefit year.” An unemployment-insurance specialist answered Tran’s letter on December 1, 2004, telling him that “to establish a second benefit account, you must have performed services in covered employment after the effective date of the prior benefit account and earned sufficient wage credits to establish a new benefit account.”
filed an appeal on December 6, 2004, a month after the appeal period ended. An unemployment law judge, after de novo
review, concluded that he lacked jurisdiction because of the untimely filing
and dismissed the appeal. Tran appealed
the dismissal. A senior unemployment
review judge conducted a discretionary de novo review under
D E C I S I O N
establish a second benefit account after the expiration of a benefit year, an
applicant must have sufficient wage credits and “must have performed services
in covered employment after the effective date of the prior benefit
To establish that he is eligible for a second benefit account, Tran must therefore demonstrate that he performed service in covered employment after the effective date of his prior benefit account and that he earned at least $3,824, which is eight times the weekly unemployment-benefit amount of the prior benefit account. The senior unemployment review judge found that Tran had not worked in covered employment after October 5, 2003. The record contains no contrary evidence, and the finding is consequently undisputed.
undisputed facts, whether a statute precludes an application for benefits is a
question of law, which we review de novo.
Ress v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., Inc.,
448 N.W. 2d 519, 523 (
Because we conclude that Tran does not meet the statutory criteria for establishing a second benefit account, we affirm the senior unemployment review judge’s decision.