Opinion
No. C3-98-660.
Filed November 17, 1998.
Appeal from the Department of Economic Security, File No. 8868UC0P.
Anne M. Bradley, (pro se relator)
Kent E. Todd, (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Shumaker, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Relator Anne M. Bradley challenges the determinations of the representative of the Commissioner of Economic Security that she: (1) was overpaid benefits in the amount of $480; and (2) fraudulently misstated her dates of unemployment. We affirm.
DECISION
Appellate courts have a limited standard of review in reemployment insurance benefits cases. Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez , 341 N.W.2d 294, 296 (Minn.App. 1983). The court only looks to see whether there is reasonable support for the representative of the Commissioner of the Department of Economic Security's decision (hereafter, "representative"). Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. , 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995). Moreover, this court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the representative's decision. White v. Metropolitan Med. Ctr. , 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn. 1983). The decision will not be disturbed if there is evidence which reasonably tends to sustain the findings of the representative. Id.
Here, the representative found that relator was overpaid benefits in the amount of $480 and committed fraud by intentionally misstating the weeks she was unemployed. Reemployment claimants are not entitled to benefits for any week in which they are working full time. Minn. Stat. § 268.08, subd. 2(5) (Supp. 1997). The record shows that relator requested, and was paid benefits for the weeks of July 20 to July 26, July 27 to August 2, and August 3 to August 9, 1997. Because the record also indicates relator was working full time during these weeks, we conclude the evidence in the record reasonably sustains the representative's finding that relator was overpaid benefits.
Relator contends the evidence in the record is insufficient to support the representative's finding of fraud. We disagree.
Relator contends she was out of work from mid-June 1997 to mid-July 1997, but that because she did not follow proper procedures, she did not procure benefits for this period. Relator claims that when she filled out the reemployment application at issue, she was attempting to apply for benefits for the June/July period of unemployment but inadvertently wrote July and August rather than June and July. Thus, she argues she did not intentionally defraud the Commissioner of Economic Security.
The record does not support this argument. The record indicates that relator stated she was out of work from "7/20/97 to 7/26/97"; from "7/27/97 to 8/02/97"; and from "8/03/97 to 8/09/97." These dates correspond to the Department of Economic Security's practice of using weeks running from Sunday to Saturday. These same dates for June and July do not correspond to the appropriate days of the week. Thus, the evidence supports the representative's determination that relator's explanation lacks credibility.
Considered in the light most favorable to the representative's decision, we conclude the evidence in the record reasonably tends to sustain the determinations of the representative.