This opinion will be unpublished and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

A05-1921

 

 

Terry L. Hiti,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

 

 

Filed June 20, 2006

Affirmed

Ross, Judge

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 9189 05

 

 

Terry L. Hiti, 3941 Horseshoe Lake Court South, Eveleth, MN 55734 (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 Wright, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Ross, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

ROSS, Judge

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.

D E C I S I O N

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.  Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7 (Supp. 2005).  We will reverse or modify the ULJ’s decision if the ULJ’s findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are erroneous under the law or are unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record.  Id.

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.  Id.; Minn. Stat. § 268.105 (Supp. 2005) (providing for appeal of DEED decision and request for reconsideration).  Whether DEED has issued a determination of disqualification, ineligibility, or overpayment, the applicant may appeal the determination and has the additional right to request reconsideration and to obtain judicial review.  Minn. Stat. §§ 268.101, subds. 2(e) (Supp. 2005) (appeal of disqualification determination), 3(d) (2004) (appeal of eligibility determination) 268.18, subd. 1(b) (appeal of overpayment determination).

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.

Affirmed.