Unemployment benefit redeterminations under the Michigan Employment Security Act (MESA); Timeframes under MCL 421.32a(1) & (2); MCL 421.32f; MCL 421.62(a); Fraud redeterminations; Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs/Unemployment Ins Agency v Lucente

Holding that Lucente controlled, the court affirmed the trial court’s order “because it reached the right result—affirming the ALJ’s and MCAC’s conclusions that” appellant-unemployment agency’s redeterminations of claimant-Campbell’s unemployment benefits “were null and void—albeit for the wrong reason.” Appellant issued redeterminations to Campbell indicating she improperly received unemployment benefits. On appeal, the ALJ found the redeterminations were null and void because appellant did not have the authority to reconsider her eligibility for benefits three years after the benefits were issued. It lacked authority because it did not issue the redeterminations within 30 days as permitted by § 32a(1) or within a year of the determination upon a showing of good cause as permitted by § 32a(2). The ALJ also found that, “while Campbell fraudulently received benefits,” appellant did not have authority to recoup them under § 62(a) because it “failed to meet the procedural requirements and timeframe set forth under § 32(f) or § 32a(1) or (2).” The MCAC and the trial court affirmed. On appeal, the court found that the trial court reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason. “Because this case involved intentional false statements, misrepresentations, or concealment of material information, [appellant] had six years after Campbell received improperly paid benefits in which to issue a determination as to her overpayments and fraud.” And its notices of redetermination were issued “well within six years of the” benefits. However, “Lucente demonstrates that the procedures employed by [appellant] were faulty, despite the timeliness of its actions.” As in Lucente, appellant “issued ‘redeterminations’ to notify Campbell of its decisions, rather than original ‘determinations.’ As the Supreme Court explained, this procedural misstep has significant consequences because it forecloses the claimant’s right to protest the decision and subject it to . . . review before proceeding to later administrative and appellate reviews.” As such, the Supreme Court “deemed the procedural irregularity an appropriate ground to set aside the ‘determinationless “redetermination.”’”