Opinion
No. 18,152.
Filed May 28, 1951.
1. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION — Proceedings To Secure Benefits — Error in Initial Proceedings — Opportunity for Fair Hearing Before Review Board — Claimant Not Harmed. — Where a local office deputy's determination, that unemployment benefits be withheld from a claimant as repayment for previous benefits improperly paid, was affirmed by the referee whose decision was, in turn, affirmed by the Review Board, any error in the proceedings prior to the local office deputy's determination was harmless to the claimant because he had a fair hearing of all of his contentions upon the merits before the Review Board. Burns' 1951 Replacement, § 52-1537. p. 369.
2. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION — Proceedings To Secure Benefits — Appeal — Record — Evidence Not in Record — Appellate Court Cannot Review Evidence. — On appeal from a decision of the Review Board that unemployment compensation be withheld from a claimant as a repayment of previous benefits improperly paid, where the claimant did not see fit to bring the evidence before the Appellate Court, that Court was not properly called upon to review the evidence to determine whether or not there was any evidence of an improper payment. Burns' 1951 Replacement, § 52-1537. p. 369.
3. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION — Construction of Act — Collection of Improper Payments by Withholding Future Benefits — Not Limited to Same Benefit Period. — The right of the Employment Security Division to collect unemployment benefits improperly paid by withholding future benefits is not limited to future benefits in the same benefit period. Burns' 1951 Replacement, § 52-1537. p. 369.
From the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division.
Proceeding for benefits under the Employment Security Act by Joseph T. Dorozinski, opposed by the Metal and Thermit Corporation. From a decision withholding benefits, claimant appeals.
Affirmed. By the court in banc.
David Cohen, of East Chicago, for appellant.
J. Emmett McManamon, Attorney General, Glen F. Kline, Deputy Attorney General, and John M. Harrigan, Attorney for the Indiana Employment Security Division, for appellees.
The Review Board found that appellant was paid unemployment compensation benefits for the week ending February 22, 1947, and that he was not entitled to such benefits because he received wages for that week in excess of the benefit amount and was not, in fact, unemployed during such week. On March 12, 1947, he was notified that an overpayment had been made and that a refund was due. He did not repay the money.
In 1950, he became qualified for additional benefits.
Acts of 1947, ch. 208, § 1301, p. 673; Burns' 1951 Replacement, § 52-1537, defines improper benefits and provides: "The Division may collect such improper payments by withholding future benefits otherwise payable to such individuals."
After certain preliminary proceedings the local office deputy made a determination that the current benefits be withheld and applied as a repayment of the benefits improperly paid to appellant. This determination was affirmed by the referee, and the latter's decision was in turn affirmed by the Review Board.
Appellant claims there was error in the proceedings which took place prior to the local office deputy's determination, and complains that the Review Board refused to consider such 1. alleged errors on appeal to it. The record discloses that appellant had a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing of all his contentions upon the merits and that his contentions were fully considered by the Review Board. He suffered no legal harm by reason of such proceedings.
The statement is made that there was no evidence that an improper payment was made to appellant. The board found that he has never questioned the fact that he was overpaid. He has 2. not seen fit to bring the evidence before us, and hence we are not properly called upon to review it.
Appellant admits that the Division is authorized by statute to collect improper payments by withholding future benefits otherwise payable in the same benefit period. The 3. legislature has not seen fit to limit this right, to the same benefit period, and we know of no valid reason why it should be so limited.
We find no error.
Affirmed.
NOTE. — Reported in 98 N.E.2d 911.