Latest Verdicts

A note about "verdicts;" I do not publicize verdicts and settlements in civil matters unless it is reported online or in the newspaper. I find this to be a good practice. Virtually all settlements are confidential and the amount cannot be disclosed. Unemployment verdicts however are not confidential or subject to settlement agreements so results can be posted on this site.

2023 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

January 18, 2023. John Doe v. Agency. After hearing, Claimant successfully reversed an agency finding that he was ineligible for PUA benefits. He was attached to the workforce in 2019 and was found to have shown he satisfied the agencies requirements in a timely fashion. An approximate $10,000 in restitution was reversed.
January 20, 2023. John Doe v. Agency. After hearing, Claimant successfully reversed an agency finding that he was not entitled to PUA and an approximate $20,000 restitution award was reversed. Claimant was self employed and proved his self employment in a timely fashion.
February 14, 2023 Jane Doe v. Geo Secure Services. After hearing, Claimant successfully reversed an adverse agency determination that disqualified her under the voluntary leaving provisions of the Act. The ALJ found that there was a hostile working environment created by the employer. Claimant experienced repeated hostile remarks regarding her pregnancy and need for FMLA time. Claimant was found to have good cause to terminate her employment as the employer’s actions would cause a reasonable person to give up his or her employment.
February 14, 2023. John Doe v. Nexteer Automotive. After hearing, Claimant successfully reversed an adverse agency ruling that he was disqualified under the misconduct provisions of the Act. He always did his job to the best of his ability and followed the rules and procedures of the employer.
March 27, 2023. Jane Doe v. Agency. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency redetermination finding her disqualified for benefits under the reporting provisions of the Act. She established at the hearing that she supplied full and complete information to the agency, upon request, that established her pre pandemic attachment to the workforce (income for 2019 and 2020).
March 28, 2023. Jane Doe v. Saganother LLC. Claimant successfully appealed an agency redetermination finding her disqualified under the voluntary leaving provisions of the Act. At hearing, she was found not disqualified and the ALJ held that she did not owe any restitution. The ALJ found it significant that there was a material change in job duties (a requirement that she go “live” on social media to make sales) and that even if she was said to have voluntarily left her employment, she established good cause for leaving due to the material change. Claimant offered to procure a doctor’s note to justify her inability to “go live” on social media due to an anxiety disorder. Claimant was fired because she stated she was unable to do live videos. She did not quit her job. The ALJ further found that the employer did not establish any disqualifying misconduct.
April 14, 2023. John Doe v. Aquila Farms LLC. Claimant successfully established that he was not a voluntary quit and that he in fact was fired (for reasons which did not constitute misconduct). The Claimant was found not disqualified and restitution was not owed.
April 14, 2023. Jane Doe v. Livingston County Community ME. Claimant was unable to show that she left her employment voluntarily with good cause to the employer or for COVID related reasons however, the ALJ found that the agency paid the Claimant and made a clerical error in doing so. Thus, she was not obligated to pay restitution. Thus, this is a positive result for the Claimant.
April 14, 2023. Jane Doe v. Agency. After hearing, Claimant established that she was not overpaid benefits and that she did not owe restitution for weeks in December 2020. The Agency failed to make any showing that she was overpaid or to explain the basis for restitution amounts owed.
April 14, 2023. Jane Doe v. Livingston County Community ME. Claimant was able to establish that she should not be disqualified under the ability provisions of the act. *This claimant prevailed on three issues on one hearing date.
May 4, 2023. Jane Doe v. Agency. After hearing and although found not to be entitled to PUA benefits, Claimant successfully established that she was entitled to a waiver of restitution because she was always truthful in her dealings with the agency and was paid as a result of an agency error.
May 12, 2023. John Doe v. Lime and Gypsum Products, Inc. After hearing, Claimant was found to have voluntarily left employment with good cause attributable to the employer. Claimant established that he had safety concerns, reported them to management, and that they were not remediated. The ALJ concluded that a reasonable person would have resigned under these circumstances and that he should not owe any restitution.
May 23, 2023. Jane Doe v.Pinconning Schools. Claimant successfully appealed, lost substantively at hearing and then after remand from the unemployment appeals commission won a waiver of restitution because the Claimant (although technically employed while receiving benefits) always provided truthful and accurate information to the agency and was entitled to an “equity and good conscience” waiver.
May 26, 2023. Jane Doe v. Bay County Department of Human Resources. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency finding that she was disqualified under the voluntary leaving provisions of the act. She, at hearing, was able to establish that she should be considered laid off due to having Covid-19 childcare responsibilities due to school closures and remote learning. She was found not disqualified from receiving benefits.
June 6, 2023. John Doe v. Titan Concrete LLC. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency redetermination dated October 25, 2023 finding him disqualified under the voluntary leaving provisions of the act. After hearing, the ALJ found that claimant met the leaving for provisions of the act and he should not be disqualified because he accepted permanent, full-time employment with R & R Ready Mix.
July 5, 2023. John Doe v. Mclaren. Claimant found not disqualified for benefits pursuant to section 29(1)(a). The agency was directed to review the employer’s account regarding benefits charged to its account and provide clarification about the charges/credits on its account for benefits paid to claimant.

2022 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

November 23, 2022. Jane Doe v. Agency. Claimant successfully appealed agency determinations finding her disqualified for PUA benefits. The first was resolved by uploading documentation to the website. The second required a hearing with an administrative law judge. After hearing, Claimant was found available for work for all weeks at issue and she was awarded all weeks of PUA benefits.
November 21, 2022. Jane Doe v. Agency. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency determination finding her disqualified for PUA benefits. Claimant was able to establish that she was planning to commence employment at the beginning of the pandemic and that the employment did not come to fruition because of the pandemic. Thus, the restitution order was reversed and Claimant was deemed not ineligible for benefits.
October 31, 2022. Jane Doe v. Agency. Claimant successfully established that she provided verification in a timely fashion to justify her receipt of PUA benefits. Restitution was reversed after hearing.
October 13, 2022. John Doe v. L & M Partners 2 LLC. Claimant appealed an adverse determination from the agency finding him disqualified under the voluntary leaving provisions of the act. At hearing, the employer argued that he was, in reality, fired. Claimant was able to establish that he did not engage in disqualifying misconduct and thus, was qualified for benefits.
September 23, 2022. Jane Doe v. Agency. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency determination finding her disqualified for PUA benefits. Claimant was able to establish that she had secured employment to commence in 2020 which did not come to fruition due to the pandemic. Claimant was deemed not to owe restitution and was a fully favorable result.
September 9, 2022. Jane Doe v. VP Total Solutions Inc. Claimant successfully appealed an agency redetermination finding her disqualified under the voluntary leaving provisions of the act. The agency was confused about the transition between a temporary service and permanent employment. After hearing, she was found not disqualified for benefits. Claimant also established (on a second issue) that she was available for full-time employment all hours, days, and shifts of her customary work. Restitution order was reversed.
August 31, 2022. Jane Doe v. Agency. Claimant successfully established that she was available for work and good cause for late protest (US Mail unreliable during pandemic for UIA purposes). Claimant established that she is currently working full-time, and despite a 10-day Covid-19 quarantine, she was available for full-time work.
August 31, 2022. John Doe v. A J Johnson Construction. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse redetermination finding him guilty of disqualifying misconduct. He established, at hearing, that he always did his job to the best of his ability and followed the employer's policies and procedures. He was found not disqualified for benefits.
August 25, 2022. John Doe v. Blarney Castle Oil Co. Claimant successfully defended an employer appeal on the issue of voluntary leaving. Claimant established that he satisfied his rework requirement before applying for benefits from a subsequent employer and that the determination stating that he was disqualified was properly deemed "null and void" by the agency. Claimant was found to be fully entitled to benefits and the employer's account was not charged.
August 11, 2022. John Doe v. Agency/PUA. Claimant successfully appealed an agency determination and restitution order finding him ineligible for benefits. After hearing, Claimant established that he was self employed and supplied all necessary and requested information to the agency.
August 5, 2022. John Doe v. MMR. Claimant successfully appealed an agency determination that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits during the pandemic. However, we established at hearing that he had active COVID-19 symptoms and met the exceptions under the Act. He had been placed on leave per the employer's COVID-19 policy.
May 20, 2022. John Doe v. Lippert Components. Claimant prevailed at hearing on a pandemic UIA claim. He was quarantined at the U of M hospital with his terminally ill child. He was deemed by the ALJ to have left work involuntarily and thus not disqualified. Further, the ALJ found that aside from the period of complete quarantine, he was available for full-time work and thus not ineligible for benefits.
March 23m 2022. Jane Doe v. Agency. Claimant established that she had good cause for her late submissions since she was locked out of her account and with the assistance of an agency representative, protested late and uploaded submissions necessary to establish her entitlement to PUA benefits.
March 24, 2022. Jane Doe v. Andrew Aretakis DDS. Claimant was able to establish that she did not engage in disqualifying misconduct and that she always did her job to the best of her abilities. The employer did not participate in the hearing.
February 8, 2022. John Doe v. Agency (PUA). Claimant is a Michigan resident who last worked in Ohio. He elected to apply for PUA in Michigan. He received PUA benefits at $160 per week. The agency later determined he was ineligible and ordered over $27,000 in restitution. After hearing, we established that he was actually underpaid PUA (should have been receiving $362 per week) and that he was properly paid benefits in Michigan. The ALJ found that he did not engage in misrepresentation and did not owe any restitution and further found that he was owed money due to being underpaid.

2021 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

December 22, 2021. John Doe (PUA). Claimant was found eligible after hearing having established his availability and that his reduction in work was due to the pandemic.
December 21, 2021. John Doe v. City of Frankenmuth. Claimant successfully defeated a request for rehearing made by the employer who failed to appear for the original hearing (at which Claimant prevailed). Claimant was found not guilty of disqualifying misconduct in the context of his position as a police sergeant.
December 17, 2021. John Doe v. Knights Facilities Management. Claimant successfully appealed an agency determination finding him disqualified under the voluntary leaving provisions of the act. At hearing, he established that he was, in reality, fired and that the employer was unable to prove disqualifying misconduct. An employee witness attempted to use the notes of a former employee to establish misconduct and the judge found her lack of personal knowledge unpersuasive in light of claimant's testimony. Claimant was facing in excess of $40,000 in restitution which was reversed as part of the decision and order.
December 9, 2021. Jane Doe v. Caremark LLc. Claimant successfully established that childcare was problematic during the pandemic, she did not limit her availability due to childcare obligations. She was found to be entitled to benefits pursuant to Section 28(1)(c).
December 9, 2021. Jane Doe v. Covenant Healthcare. Claimant established that her job separation was related to the pandemic (childcare) such that she was entitled to benefits under Section 29(1)(a) and that benefits paid to her should have been charged to the Agency nonchargeable benefits account rather than the employer (Covenant).
October 7, 2021. Jane Doe v. Bopp Busch MFG Co. Claimant successfully appealed a finding that she voluntarily quit her employment with Bopp Busch. At a hearing, we were able to establish that she met the requirements of the "leaving-to-accept" provisions of the act (see Section 29(5)).
October 12, 2021. Jane Doe v. Park Lawn Memorial Group LLC. Claimant established that she was available for work although she was taking care of her elderly mother after she was terminated. She could work remotely or at an employer's location and would have made care arrangements for her mother. She as found not ineligible for benefits.
September 29, 2021. Jane Doe v. Saginaw Shiawassee Habitat For Humanity. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency ruling finding her guilty of misconduct. After a contested hearing, the administrative law judge found that the employer did not meet its burden and that although there was a rule prohibiting personal use of business computers, the rule was not routinely enforced and that claimant did not intentionally act in contravention of the employer's best interest and was otherwise performing satisfactorily.
Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency ruling finding her disqualified under the availability (childcare) provisions of the act. We established that she was available for her ordinary work and would have made childcare arrangements if offered a job. This case emphasized the importance of taking time to answer fact finding and certification questions accurately. The Claimant's ordinary daycare was a problem due to Covid so she candidly responded that her availability was limited (for third shift work) due to childcare. However, she had opportunities for childcare for her ordinary work day.
July 21, 2021. John Doe v. City of Frankenmuth. Claimant successfully appealed a finding of disqualifying misconduct. Claimant established that he always did the job to the best of his ability and always followed the rules set forth by his employer.
June 3, 2021. John Doe v. Knight Facilities Management. Claimant successfully appealed an agency determination finding that he voluntarily left his employment. At hearing, it was established that he left for full-time permanent employment with another employer and thus he was not disqualified from receiving benefits. Thus, we used the "leaving for" provisions of the act successfully.
June 3, 2021. Jane Doe v. MidMichigan Medical Center Midland. Claimant successfully established that she had good cause for filing a late protest. We showed that she actually protested the wrong item but was thoughtful enough to put a letter identification in the text of the protest. The underlying issue was also won and she established that she was not disqualified under the ability provisions of the act.
May 27, 2021. John Doe v. Great Lakes Castings LLC. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency determination. Claimant was facing significant restitution. We established that he missed work due to the pandemic and not disqualifying misconduct. The Claimant's restitution balance was reversed and he received almost $3,000 in additional funds after hearing.
May 26, 2021. Jane Doe v. Meijer Great Lakes Limited Par. Claimant successfully established that she did not engage in disqualifying conduct. Administrative Law Judge Steven Brown rendered a fully favorable opinion after hearing.
May 19, 2021. John Doe v. Haworth Inc. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency ruling finding him disqualified under the misconduct provisions of the act. Although claimant bypassed log out/tag out procedures, he was able to show that he made a decision to repair the line with minimal downtime and did not believe he was endangering himself or others and always did the job to the best of his ability. Result: Claimant was not disqualified for benefits under the act.
May 18, 2021. John Doe v. BB Oilfield Equip Inc. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency ruling finding him disqualified under the "employed" provisions of the act. Claimant was able to establish, at hearing, that he did not request a leave of absence and that he should not be disqualified from receiving benefits.
April 28, 2021. Jane Doe v. St. Mary's of Michigan. Claimant sued the Unemployment Agency Director after her protest stagnated with the agency for months. After successfully advancing the matter to the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules, she established that she was not disqualified from receiving benefits pursuant to the misconduct provisions of the Act. The employer had accused her of misconduct and terminated her on May 7, 2020. She proved that she always did her job to the best of her ability and did not engage in any conduct that would have warranted discharge.
April 20, 2021. Jane Doe vs. Wal-Mart Associates. After hearing, Claimant was deemed not ineligible for benefits. We established that although she could not wear a mask, she was capable of performing remote/telecommuting work during the pandemic. Thus, she was able to perform full time suitable work in her customary capacity but for COVID-19.
April 13, 2021. Jane Doe vs Montcalm soil conservation district. Claimant successfully appealed an agency determination finding her disqualified for benefits under the voluntary leaving provisions of the act. After hearing, claimant established that her leaving was not voluntary and that she was in fact terminated by her employer without an opportunity to continue employment.
March 11, 2021. Jane Doe v. Agency. A decision of an administrative law judge dated January 15, 2021 was successfully set aside upon rehearing by ALJ Buttar. Claimant was found not disqualified for benefits as she was able to work from home in a customer service role despite being confined to her home due to health concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic and family obligations. The Claimant was shown to be eligible for benefits under the MESA and the CARES Act.
March 2, 2021. Jane Doe v. Lowes Home Centers. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency determination finding her disqualified for benefits due to failing to make an appointment with Michigan Works. She established that she was severely ill with Covid symptoms and confined to quarantine. The Administrative Law Judge found good cause to excuse the failure and she is found not ineligible for benefits.
February 19, 2021 Jane Doe v. Bay County Medical Care Facility. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency determination finding that she voluntarily separated from her employment which disqualified her for benefits. We convinced the Administrative Law Judge that she, in reality, left one part time job to focus on another (with an increase of hours) and thus she should not be disqualified. The second part-time position was impacted by the Covid 19 Pandemic and could not be anticipated.
February 17, 2021 John Doe Identity Issue/self employed truck driver. Claimant had to have a hearing to prove his identity to the satisfaction of the agency. After submitting two forms of identification, the Claimant was deemed not ineligible for benefits.
February 2, 2021. Jane Doe v. Approved Cash Advance Centers. Claimant successfully appealed an agency determination finding her disqualified under the voluntary leaving provisions of the Act. The ALJ found that she should not be disqualified as she resigned when Covid 19 symptoms persisted beyond the recommended quarantine. Thus, she left work involuntarily for medical reasons and is not disqualified for benefits.
January 21, 2021. Jane Doe v. Lowes Home Centers. Claimant found not disqualified for benefits establishing that she was able to work from home during the pandemic and she was physically unable to report to work due to Covid 19 symptoms and childcare issues.

2020 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

December 20, 2020. John Doe v. Nichols Unlimited Inc. Claimant successfully demonstrated that he had good cause for late filing of his appeal and that he was terminated rather than having voluntarily resigned his employment. Claimant was found to be entitled to unemployment benefits for each week claimed.
December 11, 2020. Jane Doe v. Bath & Body Works LLC. Claimant successfully appealed an agency finding of disqualifying misconduct. At hearing, the Claimant established that she disagreed with the allegations of theft and always did the job to the best of her ability. The Administrative Law Judge found her to be not disqualified from receiving benefits under the misconduct provision of the Act.
December 9, 2020. Jane Doe v. Holy Cross Childrens Services. Claimant successfully appealed an agency finding that she was disqualified under the misconduct provisions of the Act. During the contested hearing, Claimant was able to show that she did not intentionally fail to obtain a background check for a foster home. Although the employer may have shown she made some errors in her work, the employer failed to show that her conduct was intentional. Claimant was found to be not disqualified for benefits.
November 19, 2020. Jane Doe v. Asona Home Health LLC. Claimant successfully appealed the agency finding that she was disqualified under the voluntary provisions of the Act. The ALJ found that she was not disqualified since she never resigned, was in a severe car accident and was on a leave of absence. Because she never abandoned her job or resigned, she was not disqualified. Claimant was therefore awarded benefits for each claimed week and the Agency's Redetermination was reversed.
April 10, 2020 Jane Doe v. Visiting Nurse Services of MI. Claimant appealed an adverse finding that she was disqualified from benefits under the misconduct provisions of the act. Claimant had been progressively disciplined for making labeling errors. The agency determined that her conduct was intentional. Claimant showed at the hearing that she always did the job to the best of her ability and always followed her employer's policies. The ALJ found in her favor reversing the agency's finding of misconduct and stating that she was entitled to benefits.
April 8, 2020 Jane Doe v. Roscommon County Commission on Aging. Claimant appealed an adverse finding that she was disqualified from benefits under the misconduct provisions of the act. Claimant had been fired after allegedly violating confidentiality relating to a client of the commission. She had shared (with permission) the status of an elderly woman who frequented the congregate meals. Claimant had been reprimanded for alleged violations of policy in the past. The ALJ found that the Claimant's actions were reasonable and that she always tried to do the job to the best of her ability. The employer, having failed to meet its burden, was unable to prove misconduct. The ALJ found in her favor reversing the agency's finding of misconduct and stating that she was entitled to benefits.
March 18, 2020. Jane Doe v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Claimant successfully argued that she should not be disqualified from benefits pursuant to the misconduct provisions of the Act. The agency finding was affirmed despite an appeal by the employer. She established that she did not use foul language in the workplace and that she had been employed for years without disciplinary action. Specifically, and using an appropriate hearsay objection, we were able to show the administrative law judge that the employer's witness, Adam Dodge, Store Manager, did not have personal knowledge of the alleged misconduct and thus, the employer witness failed to provide competent evidence which established that the claimant engaged in statutory misconduct.

2019 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

December 27, 2019. John Doe v. Quality Temporary Services. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency finding regarding his availability for work. Claimant established, at hearing, that he was able to work in the types of jobs that he has performed in the past, including working as a carpenter, lot attendant, cashier and stocking shelves. Furthermore, established that he did not voluntarily leave his employment and rather, the employer refused to accommodate his work restrictions. Thus, Claimant was not disqualified for benefits under the Act.
December 17, 2019. John Doe v. Carrollton Public Schools. Claimant found not disqualified for benefits under the voluntary leaving provisions of the Act. The judge found that claimant resigned after being advised that his principal was looking to replace him and that he would be discharged. The claimant had been faced with unfounded allegations during his tenure at the school and his requests for transfer were denied. The evidence presented showed that the claimant voluntarily left this employment with good cause attributable to the employer, for which a reasonable person would have left due to the emotional trauma and impact to his health.
December 2, 2019. John Doe v. Shively Bros Inc. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse finding of the agency finding him disqualified for benefits due to misconduct. He was a salesperson who had been delivering product in five gallon pails to customers in his personal vehicle. When the pails accidentally fell out of the back of the pickup truck, he was accused of failing to properly secure a load. He was never trained on how to secure a load and the termination was just a rouse for availing himself to his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
October 8, 2019. John Doe v. Menard, Inc. Claimant was fired after he was seen drinking beer in the parking lot of his employer (after hours). The administrative law judge found that despite the employer's insistence that the claimant violated policy, the employer failed to uniformly apply the policy as his supervisor was also drinking beer in the parking lot (and was not likewise fired). Claimant received full unemployment benefits.
August 22, 2019. John Doe vs. GQ Printing. Claimant successfully appealed a finding of disqualifying misconduct. Claimant was accused of kicking a vending machine on a break. Administrative law judge found that the employer failed to provide evidence that claimant was discharged for job-related misconduct. Claimant not disqualified for benefits after hearing and he is entitled to full benefits.
July 24, 2019. Jane Doe v. Shively Brothers Inc. Claimant appealed an agency redetermination finding her disqualified due to "intoxication" at work. At hearing, Claimant showed that the positive test results were unreliable due to her use of mouthwash for a dental condition. Claimant was found not disqualified from receiving benefits under the act.
July 16, 2019. Jane Doe v. MC Kostrzewa and CO PC CPAS and Michigan UIA. Claimant/Appellant appealed a final order of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission dated January 23, 2019. The Isabella County Trial Court reversed the findings of the MCAC finding in favor of the client. The Court held that she should not be disqualified pursuant to the voluntary leaving provisions of the Act since she left with good cause attributable to the employer. The MCAC improperly second guessed credibility determinations made by the Administrative Law Judge and its order was not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Claimant had complained about data security issues, marijuana in the workplace, and liability concerns regarding the upcoming tax season. This client also retained me to handle a waiver request on the amounts owed in restitution on this file which was also granted after successful appeal.
June 18, 2019. Jane Doe v. City of West Branch. Claimant successfully argued that she quit with good cause attributable to the employer after she experienced gender, pregnancy, and medical leave discrimination along with retaliation after making complaints of hostile work environment.
March 18, 2019. Jane Doe v. Mid Michigan medical center. Claimant successfully appealed a finding of misconduct. Claimant established that she had performed her position to the best of her ability and was terminated for reasons which were related to a work injury as opposed to her performance.
March 13, 2019 Jane Doe v. Dow Chemical employees credit Union. Claimant successfully argued that she was discharged or resigned with good cause attributable to the employer. The administrative law judge found that material changes to her employment established good cause including unfair criticism, Increase in workload, and failure to provide full-time work.
January 14, 2019. Jane Doe v. Saginaw County Employee's Credit Union. Claimant awarded full benefits after hearing finding that she did not refuse to perform duties and in fact, she simply requested a modification of her current duties in light of a disability. She was found not to be guilty of misconduct and not disqualified for benefits.

2018 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

December 14, 2018. Jane Doe v. Senior Home Care Solutions Inc. Claimant resigned from her employment with the only alternative being termination without cause. After hearing, Claimant was found to be not disqualified from benefits under the voluntary leaving provisions of the act. Claimant awarded full benefits.
October 30, 2018. Jane Doe v. Winzer Corporation. Claimant was placed on an involuntary layoff due to pregnancy. The employer argued that she was "job attached" and thus, ineligible for benefits. Since the layoff was involuntary and Claimant could have worked to her maternity leave (with minor restrictions) she was found not ineligible for benefits after hearing in front of Administrative Law Judge Johnson.
October 24, 2018. John Doe v. Dean Transportation. Employee accused of sexual harassment successfully appealed an agency finding of misconduct disqualifying him from benefits. After a lengthy hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found the employer failed to meet its burden. Of significance, the alleged accuser was not called by the employer to testify. Employee argued that the employer was retaliating for complaints he had previously made against his supervisor.
October 16, 2018.John Doe v. New NGC, Inc. Claimant successfully appealed of finding that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under the misconduct provisions of the act. Upon appeal, claimant was awarded full benefits and was found not guilty of misconduct.
October 12, 2018. Jane Doe vs. Lear Corp. Claimant successfully appealed adverse agency findings that she was medically unable to work and "job attached." Claimant showed that she was able to work, full time, in positions for which she had training and experience but that Lear refused to reinstate her and refused to communicate with her upon her release to work. Thus, Claimant was found to meet the eligibility requirements of the Act and was able to receive benefits.
August 28, 2018. Jane Doe vs. Memorial healthcare center. Fully favorable decision of administrative law judge Mark S Grant finding claimant not disqualified from receiving benefits under the misconduct provisions of the act. Claimant was accused of intentionally failing to perform in her job duties.
July 20, 2018. Jane Doe v. Memorial Healthcare. Claimant successfully appealed a decision of the agency finding her disqualified under the misconduct provisions of the Act. Claimant was accused of violating policy which Plaintiff denied. The employer elected not to participate.
June 25, 2018. John Doe v. Michigan Bell Telephone. Claimant accused of misconduct/failure to meet management expectations. Judge Washington found that the employer (who did not participate) did not meet its burden and the Agency's finding of misconduct reversed. Claimant awarded full benefits.
June 22, 2018. John Doe v. Quality Temporary Staffing. Foreman accused of sleeping on the job wins at hearing. The ALJ found him not guilty of misconduct. The Judge found that none of the employer witnesses were able to provide specific times as to when the Claimant was allegedly sleeping. Claimant was able to provide a timeline of work actually performed to counter the sleeping accusation.
March 6, 2018. Jane Doe v. Lutheran Homes Mich., Inc. Claimant successfully appealed an adverse agency redetermination finding her guilty of misconduct by using profanity in the workplace. Claimant denied the allegations and prevailed after a contested hearing. Claimant showed that she complained of race discrimination in the workplace and that the allegations were without merit.
February 2, 2018. Claimant was discharged from Consumers Energy and was accused of placing the company in a false light on social media during work hours. Claimant prevailed at the hearing stage in front of Administrative Law Judge Mark S. Grant who found claimant not disqualified for benefits under the misconduct provisions of the Act.
January 25, 2018. Jane Doe v. Morrison Management Specialist. Claimant found not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to the misconduct provision of Section 29(1)(b) of the Michigan Employment Security Act. Claimant began working for Employer's predecessor, St. Mary's Hospital-kitchen, on November 8, 1990. Claimant worked as a full-time cook. Claimant was discharged. Based on the facts presented at the hearing, misconduct was not established. Claimant was accused of eating (necessary due to low blood sugar) in a work area.
January 5, 2018. Jane Doe v. Nexteer Automotive Corporation. Claimant was terminated due to obtaining excess points under the employer's no fault attendance policy. Claimant established that she did not violate the policy and that she was thus not guilty of disqualifying misconduct. Benefit to Claimant: 20 weeks/full benefits.

2017 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

November 13, 2017. Jane Doe v. Northwest Michigan Surgery Center. Claimant successfully appealed an October 18, 2017 agency determination finding her disqualified for benefits under the misconduct provisions of the act. Claimant was accused of posting an improper photograph on social media in violation of the employer's policy and procedure. Claimant argued that it was a momentary lapse in judgment, that her social media account was set to "private" and that she removed the photograph as soon as she learned the employer had issue with it. Claimant was found not disqualified from receiving benefits under Section 29(1)(b) of the Act.
October 19, 2017. John Doe v. Kelly Services, Inc. claimant was found not disqualified for benefits after ignoring an emergency drill and being accused of insubordination. The employer failed to meet burden of establishing intentional misconduct. Claimant was awarded full benefits after hearing in front of an administrative law judge.
October 4, 2017 Jane Doe v. Bankers Life Casualty. Claimant found not disqualified from receiving benefits under the misconduct provisions of the Act. Administrative Law Judge Dahlquist found that the Claimant was terminated based on hearsay and had performed her job to the best of her abilities and without any incidents of discipline prior to discharge. Claimant had been accused of having a felony conviction (hearsay) which was a disqualifying factor in the position held by Claimant.
September 21, 2017 John Doe v. Schwan's Home. Claimant found not ineligible for benefits under the misconduct provisions of the Act. Claimant worked as a salesperson for Schwan's for 27 years prior to discharge. The employer failed to produce evidence that claimant engaged in any disqualifying wrongdoing or disregard of employer's standards. Claimant awarded full benefits.
September 6, 2017. John Doe v. Griffin Pest Solutions. Claimant established good cause for late appeal under Section 32a(2) of the Act. Claimant's attorney was not sent a copy of the redetermination and that was sufficient cause to justify an appeal filed five days late. Further, Claimant was not disqualified from receiving benefits under the misconduct provision of the act although he had been accused of falsifying time records and terminated. Claimant established that he had permission from his supervisor to clock in when he started work at home rather then when he arrived at the first customer's home because the employer did not have a local office and he was required to keep chemicals and tools at his home. Claimant awarded full UIA benefits as a result of the hearing which took place in front of Administrative Law Judge Douglas Wahl.
August 16, 2017. John Doe v. Nexteer Automotive Corporation. Claimant appealed the Agency's June 12, 2017 Adjudication finding him disqualified for benefits under the misconduct provisions of the Act. The employer claimed that Claimant made threats of violence in the workplace which the Claimant denied. Administrative Law Judge Nancy Bondar reversed the Agency Adjudication and found him not ineligible for benefits. The Judge also found that he was not ineligible under the reporting provisions of the Act where he followed the instructions given by an Agency representative and where he remedied the problem at issue immediately.
June 27, 2017. John Doe v. Saginaw Control and Engineering. Claimant reversed the Agency's May 25, 2017 adjudication finding him ineligible for benefits from March 19 to April 8, 2017 due to his failure to certify in a timely fashion (he had called a week late due to an error on his part). Claimant established good cause for late certifying by showing a good faith attempt to timely certify.
June 7, 2017 John Doe v. Crumbs Gratiot Place. Claimant was found to have established good cause for late appeal and defeated an allegation that he voluntarily quit. The administrative law judge found that where the employer reduced his hours and barred him from going behind the counter to check the schedule he was fired for the purposes of the act. Claimant was found not disqualified for benefits.
May 26, 2017. John Doe v. Hillhaven Farms, Inc. Claimant reversed a finding of the Agency holding him disqualified for benefits under the misconduct provisions of the Act. The employer accused Claimant of stabbing cows with needles, forcefully breaking off a cow tail and aggressive behavior toward coworkers. Administrative Law Judge M. Howie found, after a two session hearing, that Claimant had been trained to move cows by wiggling the tails and by poking the cow with needles by a lead co-worker. Also, she found that Claimant changed his behavior once management spoke to him about his behaviors. She also found that Claimant acted appropriately during a verbal altercation where he was called the "n" word. The Judge found that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of disqualifying misconduct. The Agency's March 21, 2017 adjudication was REVERSED.
April 13, 2017 John Doe v. Reynolds, Smith and Hills Inc. Claimant was facing restitution and penalties relating to a severance payment made upon conclusion of employment. Employer erroneously reported the payment to the agency and Claimant proved at hearing that he received the monies in lump sum and that all earnings were properly reported. Claimant was found not ineligible for benefits under the Act and no restitution or penalties were applicable.
February 21, 2017. Jane Doe v. St. Francis Home. Claimant was accused of neglecting a patient and not being a team player at work. Claimant had been employed since 2007, had satisfactory performance reviews, and worked as a full-time CNA. Claimant received progressive discipline prior to discharge. The ALJ found that the employer failed to meet its burden of establishing that Claimant engaged in violations of the Employer's standards of performance. Claimant performed her job to the best of her ability and thus the ALJ found that Claimant was not disqualified for benefits under the misconduct provision of the Act.
February 3, 2017. Jane Doe v. Mclaren-Lapeer Region. Claimant was accused of sleeping on the job. After hearing, Claimant awarded full benefits after establishing the employer was not harmed, that Claimant was on a break, and the evidence presented did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct.
January 31, 2017. John Doe v. Saginaw Control and Engineering. Claimant reversed agency finding of misconduct. Claimant argued that urinating out of doors in an emergency situation was a single incident of poor judgment that did not constitute disqualifying misconduct.
January 19, 2017. John Doe v. DS3 Ventures LLC. Claimant awarded full benefits after hearing. Employer had provided progressive discipline for absences and tardies. Claimant established no misconduct occurred since the last absence was due to a mistake in his understanding of the schedule.
January 19, 2017. Jane Doe v. Generations Healthcare. Claimant found to meet the ability provisions of the Michigan Employment Security Act after hearing. Claimant was available and able for suitable full-time work.
January 18, 2017. John Doe v. Coca Cola Refreshments USA Inc. Claimant established that he was not guilty of misconduct. Claimant was on Workers' Compensation, working light duty, for the employer. He was compensated for time spent attending doctor's appointments as part of his light duty assignment. Employer accused him of time card fraud however it was his supervisor who advised Claimant to document his time in the manner he did. Benefit to claimant: 20 weeks of benefits paid effective January 23, 2017.

2016 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

November 22, 2016 Jane Doe v. Memorial Healthcare Center. Claimant awarded full UIA benefits after hearing. Employer argued that Claimant was guilty of misconduct as defined by the Act. Claimant argued that she always did the job to the best of her ability and did not intentionally violate any rules or regulations of the employer.
October 7, 2016. John Doe v. Bell Warehouseing & Manufacturing. Claimant appealed a 2012 agency finding of ineligibility and misrepresentation. The findings resulted in significant penalties, restitution and garnishment proceedings. After a hearing, Claimant was found not inelibile, not guilty of misrepresentation and the Agency was ordered to refund all monies collected from the Claimant.
October 5,2016. John Doe v. Owosso City. Claimant was accused of misconduct in the context of work. He was involved in an accident involving a motorcycle which resulted in personal injury. Claimant established that he used due care and that it was a dangerous intersection. Claimant was awarded full benefits after a hearing in front of the Administrative Law Judge.
September 30, 2016. John Doe v. Central Transport LLC. Claimant reversed agency adjudications finding that he voluntarily quit, was guilty of intentional misrepresentation and had filed late appeals. Restitution and penalties exceeded $11,000 before he retained an attorney. After hearing, Claimant was found to be not responsible for penalties or restitution and was found to have left his employment with good cause attributable to the employer.
September 7, 2016 John Doe v. TDS Pharmacy Inc., Claimant awarded full benefits after proving that he did not engage in disqualifying misconduct by refusing to lift a medical device that was heavier than he was physically able to handle.
July 12, 2016. Brandon McAllister v. Township of Bridgeport. Termination of Plaintiff's employment as a police office with the Bridgeport Township Police Department, allegedly in violation of the PWDCRA. Read more.
June 16, 2016. Jane Doe v. Hospitality House. Claimant successfully argued that she was not guilty of misconduct or misrepresentation. Further, good cause for late appeal was shown by proving that Claimant changed her address with the UIA but for some reason, the agency did not update the computer system causing her to not timely receive important paperwork. Benefit to client: NO RESTITUTION OWED; NOT DISQUALIFIED FOR BENEFITS.
June 10, 2016 Jane Doe v. Regina-Andrew Design, Inc. Claimant found not disqualified for benefits after establishing that she met the ability requirements of the act and that, despite being medically restricted, she was able to perform work for which she had prior training and experience on a full-time basis.
June 1,2016. Jane Doe v. Iosco County. Claimant successfully appealed a finding of disqualifying misconduct. Claimant established that she was not insubordinate and that she was taking a break afforded to her by the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Benefit to Claimant: full benefits.
May 27, 2016 Jane Doe v. Ryan D. Schlict. Claimant awarded full benefits after successfully arguing that her employer had failed to meet its burden of proof regarding disqualifying misconduct. Claimant established that she did not illegally bind policies or falsify commission reports.
April 25, 2016 Jane Doe v. Mid-Michigan Gladwin Pines. Claimant was alleged to be unable to work and on a leave of absence disqualifying her for unemployment benefits. A hearing was held on April 25, 2016 and the administrative law judge found that the claimant was able to work full time at her normal positions without restriction and that the fact that the employer placed her on an involuntary leave of absence was "inappropriate and not legally binding on her."
February 26, 2016 John Doe v. Elite Leasing and Staffing Inc. Administrative Law Judge Nancy L. Bondar found in favor of Claimant on issues pertaining to allegations of refusal of assignment and fraud/misrepresentation to the Bureau. Benefit to Claimant: in excess of $29,000.00.

2015 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

December 8, 2015 John Doe v. Tradesman International Inc. Claimant successfully argued that he was not "employed" as defined by the Act and was thus entitled to and eligible for benefits.
August 24, 2015 John Doe v. Nexteer. Claimant established that he was not guilty of misconduct by showing he had authority to change pay classifications to higher rates of pay. Thus, the employer failed to show "misconduct" relating to alleged falsification of documents due to the changes in pay classification for employees in the Claimant's department. Benefit to Claimant: full UIA benefits.
September 17, 2015 Jane Doe v. Crystal Lake Clinic PC. Claimant successfully argued that absences related to a work related injury were not misconduct as defined by the Act. Benefit to client-full UIA benefits.
September 4, 2015 Jane Doe v. Sanilac County. Claimant awarded full unemployment benefits after showing she did not engage in misconduct by sending a "threatening" text to a coworker and making comments in front of a resident of the facility.
September 1, 2015 John Doe v. Jamesville Acoustics. Claimant successfully argued that he was not restricted by any healthcare provider after his termination and thus should not be disqualified under the ability provisions of the Act.
August 24, 2015 John Doe v. Capital Equipment of Clare LLC. Claimant awarded full unemployment benefits after establishing that absences due to work related injury were not misconduct as defined by the Act.
Jane Doe v. Hospice of Michigan Inc. Claimant awarded full unemployment benefits after arguing that because she had a valid authorization to view a patient's records she did not violate any privacy laws and thus was not guilty of misconduct.
August 7, 2015 John Doe v. Smith Machine and Grinding. Claimant successfully reversed an agency finding that he was guilty of misconduct. Employer argued that Claimant was involved in an altercation with a girlfriend at a local gas station resulting in a PPO. Claimant denied that he was at the gas station on the date in question, argued that the PPO was being used as a sword in a custody dispute, and that the employer's true motivation was to retaliate against him because he was a whistleblower. Benefit to Claimant: full UIA benefits.
August 6, 2015 Jane Doe v. Genesys Regional Medical Center. Claimant successfully overturned agency findings of fraud, misconduct and an order of restitution. ALJ found that Claimant left her employment with good cause attributable to the employer and chastised the employer's agent for providing false and misleading information to the agency.
July 16, 2015 Jane Doe v. Healthsource Saginaw. Claimant awarded benefits after rebutting employer's allegations of misconduct in a healthcare setting where claimant was accused of leaving controlled substances unattended. Benefit to client: full unemployment benefits.
July 14, 2015 John Doe v. Highwood Die Engineering Inc. Claimant timely appealed agency decisions finding him guilty of misrepresentation and subjecting him to fraud penalties under the act. The ALJ was persuaded by his testimony that he received incorrect information from the Pontiac Problem Resolution Office upon which he relied. The ALJ overturned the agency decision and the benefit to Claimant was relief from fraud penalties in excess of $35,000.
June 25, 2015 John Doe v. Wal-Mart Associates. Claimant successfully argued that his absences resulting in his termination were medical in nature and out of his control defeating Wal-Mart's argument that he was guilty of misconduct. Benefit to client-full UIA benefits.
June 23, 2015 Jane Doe v. Chemical Bank. Fully favorable opinion for Claimant on issues of eligibility and fraud.
June 9, 2015 Jane Doe v. Memorial Healthcare Center Claimant timely appealed an agency finding that she was disqualified for benefits under the misconduct provisions of the act. Claimant established that although the employer could establish that she had made mistakes, they were human errors and she always tried to do her difficult and fast paced job to the best of her abilities. The ALJ found that Claimant was not disqualified under the misconduct provisions of the act. Claimant awarded full unemployment benefits.
June 4, 2015 John Doe v. Trimet Industries, Inc. Claimant appealed an adverse redetermination of the agency finding him disqualified for benefits under the voluntary leaving provisions of the act. The ALJ found that he was in reality fired and that the employer failed to prove misconduct in connection with work. Claimant awarded full benefits after hearing.
June 8, 2015 Jane Doe v. Aspen Dental Management Inc. Claimant appealed a finding of misconduct relating to use of profanity in the workplace. On appeal, the ALJ found that her profanity was out of character and an isolated incident. An ability issue was also resolved in her favor. Claimant awarded full benefits after hearing.
May 29, 2015 John Doe v. Speedway LLC. Ability and Misrepresentation issues came out in favor of Claimant. Over a $37,000 benefit to client after primary benefit and penalty assessments withdrawn after hearing.
May 6, 2015 John Doe v TIG Entity LLC. Claimant awarded benefits after successfully arguing that misconduct did not exist where claimant failed to attend a "mandatory" meeting. Also, claimant failed to register for work prior to calling MARVIN and we successfully argued that since it was his first claim, he misunderstood the requirements and was not ineligible.
April 23, 2015 John Doe v Filtrona porous technologies. Claimant successfully argued that he should not be disqualified for unemployment benefits under the misconduct provisions of the act. Plaintiff refused to shave his beard which was a requirement of his position and was necessary for the use of a respirator. Since the claimant was never warned this could result in his termination he was successful in his appeal.
April 3, 2015 John Doe v. Delisle Lawn Care and Landscaping. Claimant was awarded full unemployment benefits after hearing. Claimant was disqualified by the Agency for being unable to perform full-time employment due to assault and battery by his boss, the owner of Delisle. Convincing argument was made to the Judge that he had preformed light duty in the past and that he had no physical restrictions from performing light duty work on a full-time basis.
April 3, 2015 John Doe v. Eby Brown Company LLC Claimant awarded full unemployment benefits after showing he did not voluntarily quit and was discharged for reasons which did not constitute misconduct. It was also established that although he was restricted to seated work, he had previous work experience in positions which were light duty and thus he was available for full-time work at all material times. Finally, Claimant established good cause for failing to timely register with MARVIN due to misunderstanding his obligations to appear in person to register.
March 20, 2015 Jane Doe v. Lutheran Social Services of Michigan. Successfully argued that Claimant left work with good cause attributable to the employer. She testified as to a litany of issues which weighed into her decision to resign her position. The issues included insufficient staffing, no break or lunch periods, nursing and medication errors, poor patient care and low employee morale. She also testified that she informed her supervisors regularly as to her concerns without remedial action being taken. Benefit to client: full unemployment benefits.
February 10, 2015 John Doe v. Loose Plastics, Inc. Claimant awarded benefits after successfully arguing that he did not refuse a post industrial incident drug test but rather sought to delay the test for a short period of time as he needed to attend a doctor's appointment with his daughter who was to undergo heart surgery the following day at the University of Michigan Medical Center.
January 25, 2015 Jane Doe v. Wolverine Bank. Claimant found not disqualified for benefits after hearing. Claimant lost her drivers license and employer unsuccessfully argued that the drivers license was a requirement of her job.
January 15, 2015 Jane Doe v. JCPenny Corp Inc. Claimant overturned an agency ruling that she was guilty of fraud/misrepresentation and owed quadruple restitution. Benefit to client: in excess of $60,000.
January 13, 2014 John Doe v. Chesaning Union Schools. Claimant overturned an agency ruling finding him guilty of misconduct due to protected speech relating to new laws relating to teacher evaluations. Claimant discussed guns and going postal in school setting. Convinced administrative law judge that although maybe improvidently worded, his heart was in the right place and he was exercising his First Amendment rights. The intent of his communication to express his fear that the evaluation process could cause violence in the school setting. Benefit to client-full unemployment benefits.
January 6, 2015 John Doe v. Wysong Corp. Employer failed to prove misconduct in connection with work. Successfully overturned an August 2014 agency adjudication which held claimant disqualified for benefits. Claimant awarded full UIA benefits.

2014 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

December 22, 2014 John Doe v. JB Hunt Transport Inc. reversal of a bureau redetermination holding claimant disqualified for benefits due to voluntary leaving. Claimant found to be qualified for UIA benefits after hearing.
October 24, 2014 John Doe v. C & S Motors, Decision in favor of Claimant on good cause for late filing, misconduct and fraud/misrepresentation. Claimant had difficulty with the MiWAM system resulting in not seeing notices from UIA. Benefit to Claimant was in excess of $44,575.00
September 26, 2014. Jane Doe v. Fenton Healthcare, LLC. Claimant was employed as a CNA. The employer alleged she was fired for throwing a sandwich at a resident. Claimant denied the allegations and the Judge agreed that the employer failed to meet the burden on a misconduct case. Claimant awarded full unemployment benefits.
September 22, 2014. John Doe v. The Home Depot. Claimant awarded full unemployment benefits after successfully arguing that he was not guilty of misconduct. Employer had accused him of violating code of ethics during interaction with coworker.
September 18, 2014. John Doe v. Dollar General. Claimant awarded full unemployment benefits after successfully arguing that employee did not knowingly violate company policy when he gave damaged product to a coworker that was slated for the trash.
September 12, 2014. Jane Doe v. Michigan Blood. Claimant awarded full unemployment benefits after successfully arguing that the employer failed to prove misconduct in connection with work.
September 4, 2014. Doe v. McLaren-Bay Region. Claimant awarded full unemployment benefits after successfully arguing that she was not guilty of disqualifying misconduct and was following the orders of a treating physician.
June 6, 2014 Jane Doe v. Skoric Hearing Aid Central LLC, Claimant awarded unemployment benefits and successfully argued voluntary leaving with good cause attributable to the employer after Claimant was accused of theft. Employer argued the Claimant was offered a "demotion" but the Administrative Law Judge found the "offer" to be disingenuous and not credible.
May 8, 2014 Doe v. General Motors Corp. Reversed fraud and misrepresentation (restitution ordered under sections 62(b) and 54(b)) penalty assessment premised on receipt of social security and unemployment benefits at the same time. Value to client-in excess of $150,000.
May 13, 2014 Doe v. Peplinski Investment, Inc. Overturned an Agency determination which held claimant disqualified for benefits under the misconduct provisions of the Act. Client awarded full UIA benefits.
May 16, 2014 Doe v. JD Metalworks, Inc. Successfully argued that client's lawful use of medical marijuana should not disqualify him from unemployment benefits. Claimant awarded full UIA benefits.
February 26, 2014- Doe v. Aspen Dental. Successfully appealed a January 7, 2014 agency adjudication finding claimant disqualified for benefits due to "misconduct." Convinced the Administrative Law Judge that the employer's proofs did not establish that claimant deliberately falsified information on credit applications or that she gained any advantage in gaming the application process. Outcome: Claimant is entitled to benefits for each week claimed.
January 17, 2014 Doe v. Frankenmuth Mut'l Ins. Co., successfully overturned an agency redetermination finding Claimant disqualified for benefits as a result of voluntarily leaving her position. We argued to the Administrative Law Judge that a medical leave was not a voluntarily leaving and as such, upon her release to work she was eligible for benefits.

2013 UNEMPLOYMENT VERDICTS

October 22, 2013-Finding claimant not disqualified for benefits for misconduct (client accused of abuse and mistreatment of elderly residents). Value to client-award of full unemployment benefits. Doe v. Saginaw Senior Care and Rehab.
October 16, 2013-Finding claimant not disqualified for benefits for misconduct and/or voluntary leaving (client did not report to work for 3 days due to offensive comments in workplace). Value to client-award of full unemployment benefits. Doe v. EL Hollingsworth Co.
August 26, 2013-Finding claimant not disqualified for benefits (claimant accused of theft) AND reversal of fraud finding. Value to client $45, 897.70! Doe v. TCF Bank
April 30, 2013-Finding claimant not disqualified for benefits for “voluntary leaving work.” Client accused of resigning when she failed to timely renew a license needed to perform her job. Value to client $5,540 (plus applicable extensions). Doe v. Total Renal Care, Inc.
June 20, 2013-Finding claimant has shown good cause for late appeal due to address change. Allowing claimant to challenge fraud finding and quadruple restitution of $23,168.
July 29, 2013-Reversal of fraud finding. Value to client $23,168!
June 26, 2013-Finding claimant not disqualified for benefits for misconduct (client sent personal email at work) resulting in reversal of May 20, 2013 adjudication which held claimant disqualified for benefits. Value to client $6,154 (plus applicable extensions) Doe v. Menard, Inc.
August 5, 2013-Finding claimant not disqualified for benefits. Claimant had been accused of improperly passing medication to residents of a nursing home. Value to client: Full unemployment benefits awarded. Doe v. Iosco Medical Care Facility.
June 7, 2013-Finding claimant not disqualified for benefits for misconduct (client made Facebook posting and emails to a coworker that employer argued was in violation of policy). Value to client-award of unemployment benefits. Doe v. Dow Chemical Employee Credit

Did You Know?

Credentials