Hicks v. Randstad
Digest No. 18.26
Section 421.54 & Section 421.62
Cite as: Hicks v Randstad Employment Solutions LP, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, issued July 14, 2016 (Docket No. 15-064475-248535W).
Court: Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Derrick Hicks
Employer: Randstad Employment Solutions LP
Date of decision: July 14, 2016
View/download the full decision
HOLDING: Even though Claimant did not have good cause for the late protest, the fact that the Agency dismissed the fraud charges overrides the lack of good cause for late protest. The ALJ should have reversed the adjudications or held them void.
FACTS: On August 12, 2015, the Agency issued a determination that found Claimant subject to restitution and fraud provisions of the MESA. Claimant had until September 11, 2015 to file a protest. However the Agency did not receive a protest until December 9, 2015. On December 15, 2015 the Agency issued a redetermination that Claimant did not have good cause for the late protest. Claimant timely appealed the redetermination and had hearing before an ALJ on February 20, 2016. At the hearing, the Agency informed the ALJ that it was no longer pursuing fraud charges against Claimant because there was no indication that he intentionally misled the Agency or concealed information. Nevertheless, the ALJ affirmed the redetermination.
DECISION: The Appellate Commission decided that the fact that the Agency wished to dismiss the fraud charges overrides the lack of good cause for late protest. The Appellate Commission reversed the ALJ’s decision as well as the determination and redetermination. The Appellate Commission further decided that Claimant is not subject to penalties.
RATIONALE: While the claimant had no good cause for the late protest, since the Agency wished to dismiss the fraud charges, there was no need for a showing of good cause.
Digest author: Sara Posner, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: December 26, 2017