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: John Godbout, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A12-1283
CITATION: 827 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)
Legal Issues in RELATOR'S BRIEF, ADDENDUM AND APPENDIX:
1. Did the ULJ err in concluding that relator cannot obtain a hearing on the merits of the overpayment notice mailed to his former address in April, 2006, when relator acted with reasonable effort and diligence to dispute the claim and request a hearing when he received notice in September, 2010? Raised before the Agency: Relator requested a hearing on October 7, 2010. (App-4). Relator submitted testimony and evidence at the hearing held on April 4, 2012. (App-20). The Agency's ruling: The ULJ determined that relator did not timely appeal the determination mailed on April 25, 2006. (App-22). Issue Preserved for Appeal: Relator requested reconsideration of the ULJ's decision on timeliness. (App-24). Most apposite authorities: Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950); Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. 1984); Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, L.L.C., 814 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. App. 2012); Finden v. Klaas, 266 Minn. 268, 128 N.W.2d 748 (1964); Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 2(b) (2005); Minnesota Constitution, Article 1, § 7. 2. Did the ULJ err in refusing to use DEED's inherent authority to correct an erroneous decision where relator proffered evidence that he did not receive the notice mailed to a former address? Raised before the Agency: Relator's request for reconsideration of the ULJ's decision of April 6, 2012, argued that DEED had inherent authority to reopen an erroneous decision before the appeal period expired and that the failure of notice meant that relator's appeal time had not started. (App-25, 26). The Agency's Ruling: The ULJ ruled that the determination was mailed to relator's last address of record, the determination indicated he was held overpaid, and the notice was proper. (App-30). Issue Preserved for Appeal: Relator requested reconsideration. (App-25, 26). Most Apposite Authorities: Anchor Cas. Co. v. Bongards Coop. Creamery Ass'n, 253 Minn. 101, 91 N. W.2d 122 (1958); Pfalzgraff v. Com'r of Econ. Sec., 350 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. App. 1984); Nieszner v. Minn. Dept. of Jobs & Training, 499 N.W.2d 832 (Minn. App. 1993); Rowe v. Dept. of Emply. & Econ. Devel., 704 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. App. 2005).
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-DEPARTMENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Under the law, an untimely appeal of a determination of ineligibility must be dismissed by the unemployment law judge, without exception. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development ("DEED") mailed John Godbout a determination of overpayment on April 25, 2006, at the address he had on file with DEED. Godbout did not file an appeal until 2010, well outside the 30- calendar-day period provided for by law. Was the unemployment law judge required to dismiss the appeal as untimely? Unemployment Law Judge Richard Mandell dismissed Godbout's appeal as untimely.
Also Filed: RELATOR'S REPLY BRIEF