This opinion will be unpublished and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
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed May 23, 2006
Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent)
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Relator Clarice Kirsch requests review of the decision of the unemployment law judge that she is not entitled to withdraw her benefit account. Because relator’s requested relief is not available under the unemployment law, we affirm.
Relator argues that she relied on representations of an unemployment-office employee regarding her benefit account that resulted in the receipt of less unemployment benefits than she would have been entitled had she withdrawn her account pursuant to the statute.
for unemployment benefits, the commissioner examines the application to
determine the base period and benefit year on which a determination of benefit
account is made.
Relator worked for the same company for 28 years before it was sold and she lost her job. She filed for unemployment benefits on August 15, 2004, and then began receiving severance payments. On September 9, relator called the unemployment office and spoke to someone who allegedly told her to call back at the end of April 2005 to reactivate her account. Relator’s severance package ran to May 2005. After her account was reactivated on May 1, 2005, she had a “waiting week” from May 1 through May 7, and then began receiving benefits through August 13, 2005, the end of her benefit year. Because she had not worked since August 15, 2004, she did not qualify to establish a new benefit account at the end of her benefit year. Relator claims that “[h]ad [the unemployment employee] told [her] to close the account and open a new one in April 2005, she would still be receiving benefits.” She claims that she lost $4,000 in benefits based on the employee’s bad advice.
The ULJ determined that under Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd 3b(b) an account cannot be withdrawn unless the applicant has not served a waiting week. Thus, after May 7, 2005, relator could not withdraw her account. The ULJ also stated that even if the employee gave her bad advice, the statute does not provide any exceptions to the rule for withdrawing accounts. Cf. Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3b(a) (providing that if department prevented an individual from filing an application for benefits, account deemed effective when individual first attempted to apply). When relator asked the ULJ to reconsider, the ULJ affirmed its decision that her benefit account could not be withdrawn.
There is no common-law or equitable basis for allowing unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2004). Thus, relator must show a statutory basis for withdrawal of her first benefit account or for granting her a second benefit account. Because the relief that she is requesting does not exist under the circumstances of this case, the ULJ correctly determined that she did not qualify for additional benefits.