Unemployment benefits; Judicial review of a decision by an administrative law judge (ALJ) or the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission (MCAC); The Michigan Employment Security Act (MCL 421.1 et seq.); MCL 421.38(1); MCL 421.32a(1) & (2); “Good cause”; MI Admin. Code, R 421.270(1)(e); Due process; Sidun v. Wayne Cnty. Treasurer; Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.; Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA)

The court held that the trial court did not err by concluding that the decisions of both the ALJ and the MCAC denying redetermination of claimant’s unemployment benefits were supported by substantial evidence. When claimant was fired from her job, she sought unemployment benefits from Cleary (her previous part-time employer). The UIA denied her claim, listing Cleary as the “involved employer.” It then sent a second letter listing her most recent employer as the involved employer, and stating that she was fired, although still eligible for benefits. Believing she was now qualified for benefits, she took no further action. She eventually realized her error and filed a request for redetermination of her claim against Cleary. The UIA denied the request as not having been filed within the 30-day statutory period. She appealed, but the ALJ affirmed, finding she did not establish good cause for filing her protest late. The MCAC also affirmed, and the circuit court affirmed the MCAC’s decision. The court previously denied leave, but the Supreme Court remanded. On remand, the court rejected claimant’s argument that the trial court erred by concluding that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. She claimed she had good cause for her late appeal in light of the “unreasonableness of the UIA’s notice because it was foreseeably confusing to a layperson.” However, “the UIA’s notices were not objectively unreasonable or predictably confusing.” They were not contradictory and had unique characteristics, as they “clearly listed different case numbers and discussed different statutory provisions.” Even if she “overlooked the nuances of these identifiers, the body of each message clearly indicated that the notices pertained to different employers. Even though claimant submitted only one claim, the second notice was clearly unrelated to that claim and did not mention” Cleary. The notices “did not require advanced legal interpretation to understand, and to the extent that the messages confused claimant, the UIA provided a phone number that claimant could call if she had questions.” As such, she failed to show “good cause for her late appeal because the UIA’s notices were not unreasonable.” Affirmed.