Briefs filed in Reed M. Roloff, Relator, vs. Commissioner of the Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Minnesota State Law Library

Ask a Law Librarian

Home Research Legal Topics Skills Center Services About Us

Minnesota Appellate Court Issues in Briefs

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:  Reed M. Roloff, Relator, vs. Commissioner of the Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
        Read the opinion in this case at C1-02-2204
        CITATION:  668 N.W.2d 12 (Minn.App. 2003)

Legal Issues in RELATOR'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
  • Does an unemploymetn compensation recipient automatically lose those benefits if he applies for social security disability benefits? The Commissioner's Representative held that a recipient loses unemployment compensation benefits by filing for social security disability benefits regardless of actual award of disability benefits.
  • Does receiving unemployment compensation but not receiving social security benefits constitute "overpayment" under Minnesota law? The Commissioner's Representative held that a recipient was overpaid despite there being no overlapping social security payments.

    Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-COMMISSIONER'S BRIEF ND APPENDIX:

  • Whether the record reasonably supports the commissioner's representative's decisions that (1) Relator applied for primary social security disability benefits during the week beginning March 17, 2002 and continuing through August 3, 2002 and so is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits during that period; and (2) Relator, during this period of ineligibility, received $1735 in unemployment benefits to which he was not entitled, and so is required to repay those overpaid unemployment benefits to the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Program Trust Fund. The commissioner's representative, Keith E. Goodwin, found in the affirmative. Most apposite statutes: Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 1 (2002); Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 4 (2002). Most apposite cases, not to exceed four: Tuff v. Knitcraft, 526 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 1995).

    Legal Issues in RELATOR'S REPLY BRIEF:

  • Even if Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 4 (c) is plain and unambiguous (which Relator does not concede), Zroker nevertheless controls the analysis for determining the statute's applicability.
  • Zroker should not be distinguished from Reed Roloff's case because there are substantial and material factual and legal similarities between these cases that directly address the question of when the Department of Economic Security has the right of reimbursement. The Commissioner's logic is flawed because it fails to recognize that the Zroker court implicitly determined the applicant's eligibility based on "filing for" benefits before it could possibly determine the applicant's eligibility based on "receiving" benefits. The Commissioner cannot argue that Zroker is "limited to its holding" in the context of worker's compensation without distinguishing social security disability applicants from worker's compensation applicants.
  • Contrary to the Commissioner's assertion, an unemployment compensation recipient applying for social security disability benefits does not have to make "mutually exclusive" declarations with regard to "ability to work." The Court in Zroker recognized that any seeming inconsistency in declarations about "ability to work" is not substantive. Even if this court is not persuaded that Zroker governs, Relator did not make false or mutually exclusive factual assertions with regard to his "ability" to work in his applications for unemployment compensation and social security disability benefits.


  • Minnesota State Law Library: Issues in Briefs

    Please send suggestions to the Web Manager.