This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed June 20, 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
In this certiorari appeal, relator Terry Hiti challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) requiring Hiti to repay an overpayment of unemployment benefits. Because the overpayment determination is based on Hiti’s ineligibility to receive benefits, and because Hiti does not challenge the ineligibility determination on appeal, we affirm.
The Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that Terry Hiti is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Resting on that decision, DEED determined also that Hiti had been overpaid $70 in benefits. Hiti appealed both determinations, and the ULJ rejected Hiti’s challenges in separate decisions. The ULJ affirmed both decisions on Hiti’s requests for reconsideration, again issuing separate decisions. Hiti now appeals only the decision that she was overpaid; she does not appeal the decision that she is ineligible.
This court reviews the ULJ’s decision to determine if the
substantial rights of the relator have been prejudiced.
DEED’s commissioner must determine the amount of benefits due and
notify the relator upon discovery of an overpayment of benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 1(a) (Supp. 2005)
(setting out types of nonfraud overpayments and requirement to repay). If the ULJ determines on appeal from DEED’s
initial eligibility determination that the relator is ineligible to receive
benefits, the relator must promptly repay any overpayment of benefits.
Here, the record reflects that Hiti followed the procedures available for review of the initial DEED determinations, but she failed at the critical final step by not seeking judicial review of the ineligibility decision. Because Hiti does not appeal the ineligibility decision, we do not review it. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a) (providing for judicial review of a ULJ’s decision only if a petition for writ of certiorari is filed). And because the now-appealed overpayment determination rests substantially on that unappealed final ineligibility decision, we have no basis to modify or reverse the overpayment determination. We therefore affirm.