This opinion will be unpublished and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

A05-1341

 

Hoangson D. Tran,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

 

 

Filed March 14, 2006

Affirmed

Lansing, Judge

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 1859004

 

Hoangson D. Tran, 7531 Upper 24th Street North, Oakdale, MN 55128 (pro se relator)

 

Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent)

 

            Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

LANSING, Judge

            On certiorari appeal from the determination of a senior unemployment review judge, Hoangson Tran challenges the denial of his application to establish a second account for unemployment benefits after his first account expired.  Because Tran has not met the requirements for establishing a second benefit account, we affirm.

F A C T S

Hoangson Tran was employed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation from July 1998 until October 2003.  Following his discharge on October 3, 2003, he established an unemployment-benefits account that became effective on October 5, 2003, and expired on October 2, 2004.  The benefit-account determination provided for a weekly benefit of $478 and a maximum benefit of $12,428.  Tran received benefits of $478 weekly until April 4, 2004, when his maximum benefit entitlement was exhausted.

On October 3, 2004, Tran filed an application for unemployment benefits and attempted to establish a second benefit account.  The Department of Employment and Economic Development notified him on October 6, 2004, that he was not eligible for benefits.  The notice stated that Tran could appeal the determination until November 5, 2004.  Tran did not appeal; he instead wrote to the department on November 23, 2004, “to file a formal complaint” because he “did not receive any payments since filing for unemployment benefits for a new benefit year.”  An unemployment-insurance specialist answered Tran’s letter on December 1, 2004, telling him that “to establish a second benefit account, you must have performed services in covered employment after the effective date of the prior benefit account and earned sufficient wage credits to establish a new benefit account.” 

Tran filed an appeal on December 6, 2004, a month after the appeal period ended.  An unemployment law judge, after de novo review, concluded that he lacked jurisdiction because of the untimely filing and dismissed the appeal.  Tran appealed the dismissal.  A senior unemployment review judge conducted a discretionary de novo review under Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 1(d) (2004), and determined that, because Tran had not been employed in covered employment after the establishment of his first benefit account on October 5, 2003, he did not meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3 (2004), for establishing a second benefit account.  Tran filed a certiorari appeal from this determination.

D E C I S I O N

            Under Minnesota law, an applicant must meet five requirements to receive unemployment benefits.  Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 1 (2004).  The first requirement is that “the applicant has filed an application for unemployment benefits and established a benefit account in accordance with section 268.07.”  Id., subd. 1(1). 

To establish a second benefit account after the expiration of a benefit year, an applicant must have sufficient wage credits and “must have performed services in covered employment after the effective date of the prior benefit account.”  Id. § 268.07, subd. 3 (2004).  The wage credits must equal $1,000 for the high quarter and at least $250 in another quarter.  Id., subd. 2(a) (2004).  In addition, the “wages paid for that employment must equal not less than eight times the weekly unemployment benefit amount of the prior benefit account.”  Id., subd. 3.  These requirements prevent an applicant from establishing more than one benefit account based on one loss of employment.  Id.

To establish that he is eligible for a second benefit account, Tran must therefore demonstrate that he performed service in covered employment after the effective date of his prior benefit account and that he earned at least $3,824, which is eight times the weekly unemployment-benefit amount of the prior benefit account.  The senior unemployment review judge found that Tran had not worked in covered employment after October 5, 2003.  The record contains no contrary evidence, and the finding is consequently undisputed.

On undisputed facts, whether a statute precludes an application for benefits is a question of law, which we review de novo.  Ress v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W. 2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989).  Tran did not provide evidence of the required wage credits or any evidence that he performed services in covered employment after the effective date of his first benefit account.  A second benefit account may not be established on these facts because it would create “more than one benefit account as a result of one loss of employment,” contrary to the purpose of Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3.

            Because we conclude that Tran does not meet the statutory criteria for establishing a second benefit account, we affirm the senior unemployment review judge’s decision.

            Affirmed.