Minnesota State Law Library
Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.
CASE NAME: Cliff Voge, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A10-496
CITATION: 794 N.W.2d 662 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
Legal Issues in Relator's Informal Brief and Appendix:
Relator ... appeals the decision ... taken in administering his claim for extended unemployment benefits. Such actions are in conflict with the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, as well as the stated purpose of the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Program.
Legal Issues in Respondent-Department's Brief and Appendix:
Under Minnesota law, applicants' unemployment Insurance benefit accounts expire after one year. Unemployed applicants who collect all available Minnesota benefits can then collect federally-funded extension benefits during the remainder of their benefit year. Applicants can collect these federal benefits even if their benefit year has expired, but only if they did not earn sufficient wages during their first benefit year to establish a second Minnesota benefit account. Those who can establish a second Minnesota benefit account must do so, even if their weekly benefits drop. Cliff Voge earned sufficient wages during his first benefit year to establish a second Minnesota benefit account. Was Voge entitled to continue receiving federal extension benefits, even though he could establish a second Minnesota benefit account? Unemployment Law Judge ("ULJ") Richard Croft held that Voge could not continue on federal extension benefits, as he could establish a second Minnesota account.