Picture
I am often asked if a person can get Social Security disability benefits if that person is under the age of 50 years old. If you are over 50 but not yet retirement age, Social Security basically considers you un-trainable, and you have a better chance of receiving disability benefits. You might be able to get disability benefits if you are close to 50, because Social Security considers that you are rapidly approaching age 50 (where you are supposedly untrainable).

The short answer is yes, it is possible for a person to get Social Security disability if that person is under the age of 50, but it is very difficult. There are two primary ways that a person who is under the age of 50 can get disability benefits.

First, if the applicant meets a listing for Social Security disability, Social Security will consider the applicant to be disabled, regardless of age, and will award benefits. Social Security has certain listings or criteria for considering someone to be disabled. If you meet the requirements of a listing, Social Security will consider you disabled, even if you are under the age of 50.  However, you must meet the requirements and criteria of a listing exactly, and the listings are very stringent. As a result, very few people who are under the age of 50 will meet the requirements of a listing.

Second, a person who is under the age of 50 may "grid." Social security uses a grid or table to decide if an applicant is disabled. Social Security will consider the applicant's age, skill level of past work, and something called residual functional capacity (basically meaning the skill level and type of work that an applicant is now capable of performing). However, most of the time, the grid will direct a finding that an applicant who is under the age of 50 is not disabled.

For all of these reasons, it is very difficult – although not impossible – for an applicant under the age of 50 to be awarded disability benefits. Such an applicant should expect that the initial application and request for reconsideration will be denied, and that the applicant will have to appeal and have the hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, or ALJ for short.

If the ALJ denies the application for disability benefits, the applicant should be prepared to appeal to the Appeals Council if necessary, and recommended by the applicant's attorney. The next step in the appeals process beyond the Appeals Council is suing the Social Security administration in Federal District Court.

I would recommend that an applicant for Social Security disability benefits hire an attorney for the initial application and ensuing appeals process. The applicant should be patient, because the appeals process may very well take one, two, three, or more years to complete.

Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C. represents applicants for social security benefits at all stages of the application and appeals process.  Please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an initial consultation to discuss your case and options.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.






 
 
Picture
Applicants for social security benefits frequently ask if they should have an attorney represent them in the application and appeals process.  From my perspective, the short answer is yes, for two reasons.

First, you typically hire the attorney on a contingent-fee basis of 25% of past-due benefits, or $6,000.00, whichever is less.  That means that you don’t pay any money out-of-pocket, except for expenses, and that the attorney does not get paid unless you prevail.

Second, the law related to social security benefits is mind-numbingly complex, and you need an attorney to navigate the maze of laws, regulations, and cases that govern social security, apply the law to the facts of your case, put the facts most favorable to you forward, and zealously represent you in your application and at all stages of appeal.

Some people want to file the application for disability benefits on their own, and then hire an attorney for the appeal. However, I do not think this is a wise course of action. You probably have a better chance of getting disability benefits with an attorney on your side than on your ownIt is to your benefit to hire an attorney before you submit a disability application. Your application will probably be better because you have an attorney, and although there is no guarantee that you will receive disability benefits, your application stands a better chance with an attorney than without.

So, you really have nothing to lose by hiring an attorney to represent you.  Some people apparently believe that you should apply for social security benefits by yourself the first time, when you do the initial application, but then hire an attorney if your application is denied.  I have to disagree with this notion, because you’re better off with an attorney representing you from the beginning.  The ultimate attorney fee might be less, but I’d rather see you qualify for benefits sooner  After all, the focus is on you, not the attorney.

Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C. represents applicants for social security benefits at all stages of the application and appeals process.  Please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an initial consultation to discuss your case and options.

 
 
Picture
In a published decision issued on Monday 11/9/15, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that corporate landlords -- including limited partnerships -- must be represented by a licensed attorney in district court.

A15-0496: Hinckley Square Associates, Respondent, vs. Leah D. Cervene, Appellant.

On appeal from a judgment ordering her eviction, appellant Leah Cervene argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the complaint because 2 respondent-landlord Hinckley Square Associates (“Hinckley Square”) is a limited partnership and did not appear through licensed counsel in district court. Because we conclude that limited partnerships must be represented by counsel in district court, we reverse the district court’s judgment evicting Cervene.

Cervene also argues that the district court erred (1) in declining to dismiss the case because of Hinckley Square’s failure to give proper notices required by federal regulations and the parties’ lease; (2) in finding that she owed the full amount claimed in the complaint, despite Hinckley Square’s failure to adjust her rent obligation according to her income as required by federal regulations and the parties’ lease; and (3) in finding that Hinckley Square effectively increased her rent despite failing to give a one-rental period notice. Because we conclude that Hinckley Square should not have been allowed to appear in court without licensed counsel, we do not reach the merits of these issues.

The Appeals Court concluded that "the district court erred in allowing Hinckley Square, a limited partnership, to proceed through trial without a licensed attorney."  The Court of Appeals "also conclude[d] that the participation of the nonattorneys is not a curable defect," meaning that it cannot be corrected after the fact.

The message for corporate landlords is clear: a corporate landlord, whether a corporation, partnership, or any form of business entity, must be represented by an attorney in district court.  An eviction is an action in district court, and so corporate landlords must be represented by an attorney, even in an eviction.  That has always been the rule, and why Hinckley Square Associates thought it didn't need an attorney is beyond me.

Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C. represents both landlords and tenants in eviction actions, and in other litigation related to the landlord-tenant legal relationship.  Please call (763) 450-9494 to schedule an appointment to discuss your situation today!

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.



 
 
Picture
There were three decisions on unemployment benefits issued this week from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The first is noteworthy because it is a published opinion that defines a term -- "good cause" in the context of not participating in reemployment services -- that is not defined in the applicable statute.

1. A14-1487,  Patrick Hammer Fay, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Patrick Fay was eligible for unemployment benefits but missed a reemployment assistance services meeting. Respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits for the week that he missed the meeting because he failed, without good cause, to attend. Relator filed an online appeal and an unemployment law judge (ULJ) conducted an evidentiary hearing. The ULJ found that relator did not have good cause for missing the meeting and was ineligible for unemployment benefits for the relevant week. Relator requested a rehearing and the ULJ affirmed. Relator appealed to this court under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a) (2014).

DEED determined that relator needed reemployment assistance services and mailed relator a notice that indicated he had an appointment. The notice provided in bold and underlined typeface that: “Failure to attend will result in a delay or denial of your unemployment benefits.” Relator missed the scheduled reemployment assistance services meeting. Relator testified that he “put [the meeting] in [his] schedule and . . . simply missed it.” Relator also said that the meeting was easy to attend because he lived 500 feet from the building. The ULJ asked relator if he had any other facts to provide regarding the missed meeting and he responded that he did not. Relator attended a subsequent reemployment assistance services meeting.

The Court of Appeals noted that the term "good cause" in the context of not participating in reemployment services is not defined in the applicable statute.  Using the doctrine of statutory construction known as "in pari materia" (where an undefined term in one statute can by defined by another statute with similar intent), the Appeals Court determined that, in the context of having "good cause" for failing to participate in reemployment services, defined the term "good cause" as "a reason that would have prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence from participating in those services."

After defining the term, the Court of Appeals concluded that relator did not have the requisite "good cause" for failing to participate, and affirmed the denial of benefits.

2. A14-1561, Carrie L. Zupko, Relator, vs. St. Francis Campus Credit Union, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was discharged because of employment misconduct, arguing that the false representations she made at her supervisor’s request were part of a single incident and a good-faith error in judgment.  On one occasion, relator pretended to be from the credit union's accounting department..  On another occasion, relator reversed a loan transaction without proper documentation.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

3. A14-1806,. Jonathan C. Barnett, Relator, vs. Soligent Distribution LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator challenges a final decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) affirming the earlier dismissal of relator’s appeal as untimely. Relator argues that, under the circumstances, the time allowed to appeal is unreasonable.  More specifically, Barrett argues that he did not receive the determination because he was attending a 12-week training in Texas and then attending his father's funeral.  However, as it has many times in the past, the Court of Appeals refused to make an exception to the strict rule that an appeal has to be filed within 20 days of the date of a negative determination.  Accordingly, the denial was affirmed.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, your best bet is to meet with an attorney who handles unemployment appeals to discuss your options.  To that end, I represent both applicants and employers in unemployment appeals.  Please call (763) 450-9494 today to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.  

 
 
Picture
There were three decisions on unemployment benefits issued by the Court of Appeals today.  The decisions all stand for the proposition that employment misconduct will make an otherwise eligible applicant ineligible for unemployment benefits.  Without further ado, here is the summary:



1. A14-0659, DuWayne H. Fries, Relator, vs. Ozark Automotive Distributors, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct -- violating his employer's safety policy and guidelines for operating forklifts. He also moves to correct the record to include the corporate owner of his employer as a party to this matter. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s decision that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm. Because substantial evidence demonstrates that relator was employed by respondent Ozark Automotive Distributor’s, Inc. (Ozark), we deny the motion to correct the record.

2. A14-0651, Murray Gushulak,Relator, vs. Boise Paper Holdings, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development,Respondent.

Murray Gushulak twice attempted to take a shortcut walking through an area near his employer’s crane operation that was cordoned off by red tape. He knew his encroachment violated company policy. His employer discharged him, and an unemployment law judge determined that he is ineligible for benefits. Because the unemployment law judge’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and because Gushulak’s willful disregard of company policy constitutes employment misconduct, we affirm.

3.  A14-0853, Michael Rahier, Relator, vs. Valley Markets, Inc. – Hugo’s, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) conclusion that he was discharged for employment misconduct and ineligible for unemployment benefits.  The misconduct in this case was violating the employer's policies by using the back receiving door when he was not permitted to enter and exit using that door, consuming food on the sales floor, and working on unauthorized projects at home.  We affirm.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, your best bet is to meet with an attorney who handles unemployment appeals to discuss your options.  To that end, I represent both applicants and employers in unemployment appeals.  Please call (763) 450-9494 today to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.  




 
 
Picture
There were three decisions on unemployment benefits this week from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The first two cases stand for the proposition that an applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if that applicant was discharged for employment misconduct.  The second case demonstrates that quitting a job without a good reason caused by the employer renders the applicant ineligible for unemployment benefits.

1. A14-0860, Jacqueline Crosser, Relator, vs. McAlpin Agency, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Jacqueline Crosser challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge that she was discharged for employment misconduct -- a "long-term pattern of poor attendance and tardiness" --  and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the unemployment-law judge’s decision, we affirm.


2. A14-1193, Lonn H. Luhman, Relator, vs. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development,Respondent.


Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. Because we find that substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s determination that relator committed employment misconduct by failing to appear for work as
scheduled under the company’s no-fault attendance policy, we affirm.

3.  A14-0469, Barbara Jackson, Relator, vs. Direct Home Health Care, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Relator Barbara Jackson challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by the employer. Relator also argues that the ULJ failed to apply the specific definition of “quit” for employees of a staffing service to
relator’s case and failed to develop the record. We affirm.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, your best bet is to meet with an attorney who handles unemployment appeals to discuss your options.  To that end, I represent both applicants and employers in unemployment appeals.  Please call (763) 450-9494 today to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.  


 
 
Picture
This week there was one decision on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The case highlights the law that an applicant is not eligible for unemployment benefits if that applicant was discharged for employment misconduct, unless an exception applies.  Without further ado, here is the summary:


A14-1168, Keith G. Lassiter, Relator, vs. The Bulldog Restaurant NE, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development,Respondent.

Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was discharged for employment misconduct, arguing that (1) the ULJ failed to make the required credibility findings, (2) the evidence does not substantially support the ULJ’s findings, (3) the ULJ failed to adequately develop the record, and (4) his conduct reflects only an error in judgment.

Relator worked as a bouncer, and the misconduct in this case was physically touching a customer in violation of his employer's policy.  Relator had previously violated the no-contact policy and had been disciplined for it.  As such, the ULJ found that Relator had committed employment misconduct, and was not eligible for unemployment benefits.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, your best bet is to meet with an attorney who handles unemployment appeals to discuss your options.  To that end, I represent both applicants and employers in unemployment appeals.  Please call (763) 450-9494 today to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.  

 
 
Picture
There were two decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week.  The first repeats an often-heard theme that an applicant who commits employment misconduct is ineligible for unemployment benefits.  The second stands for the proposition that an appeal must be timely filed or be dismissed and affirms an administrative decision that an overpayment of unemployment benefits is subject to Revenue Recapture.  Here are the summaries:

A14-1061, Jerome Mitchell, Relator, vs. Swift Pork Company, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Jerome Mitchell challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he committed employment misconduct.  More specifically, Mitchell had been disciplined for violating work rules involving food safety and sanitation.  We affirm.

A14-0650, Ge Yang, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator challenges two unemployment law judge (ULJ) decisions, one dismissing his appeal from an ineligibility determination as untimely, and the other concluding that his overpayment debt is properly subject to revenue recapture under the Minnesota Revenue Recapture Act.  On the timeliness issue, the Court of Appeals held that the 20-day statutory deadline for filing an appeal must be strictly construed, regardless of mitigating circumstances.  On the Revenue Recapture issue, the Court of Appeals held that an overpayment of unemployment benefits was properly repaid through Revenue Recapture, and that DEED followed all of the s  We affirm.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, your best bet is to meet with an attorney who handles unemployment appeals to discuss your options.  To that end, I represent both applicants and employers in unemployment appeals.  Please call (763) 450-9494 today to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation. 

 
 
Picture
Three cases involving unpublished unemployment decisions were released today.  Two were affirmed and the third was actually reversed. The first one involves a case where it is an undisputed fact that the Relator quit her job. However, the Relator challenges the ULJ’s conclusion that none of the exceptions in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 apply to her case. In the second case, the Relator was found to be ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he was neither available for nor actively seeking employment. The appellate court reversed the ULJ’s decision in the third case, granting the Relator’s request to reverse, but only based upon one of her three arguments -- that she had good reason to quit due to a consultant’s nonsexual and sexual harassment and her employer’s failure to address the Relator’s complaint when given the opportunity to do so. 

A14-1320   Terrylou Cripe-Scherek, Relator vs. MNKase LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary:  Relator Terrylou Cripe-Scherek appeals the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits after quitting her employment. Because Cripe-Scherek did not request an accommodation prior to quitting her employment, we affirm.

Relator was employed at Fantastic Sam’s and was responsible for all of the day-to-day operations of the salon, including hiring and firing employees. Approximately six weeks before quitting, Relator Cripe-Scherek was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a condition causing a blood clot to form in her leg.  Relator and her assistant manager discussed the fact that she could not continue performing her job—or any other job at Fantastic Sams—if she had to be seated 90 percent of the day.

 When Relator Cripe-Scherek quit, she told the owner that she was quitting because “her doctor put her on restrictions and she wasn’t able to work.” Relator Cripe-Scherek never asked the owner for additional leave or any other accommodation, which was one of the major reasons the appellate court affirmed the ULJ’s decision and also because she did not meet the statutory requirements for any of the exceptions under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1.

The general rule is that an applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if that applicant quit employment without meeting a statutory exception.  In this case, Relator's appeal was based on the statutory exception that it was medically necessary for her to quit.  However, Relator did not ask her employer to make a reasonable accommodation for her condition prior to quitting.  As such, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of benefits. 

A14-0471  Keith Travis, Relator, vs. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Respondent, Department of  Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s decision that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct and because he was neither available for nor actively seeking employment.

Because of a hand injury, Travis was asked to provide Wal-Mart with medical certification several times.  Travis failed to provide one, even after he was informed that such certification was required and given nearly a month to provide it. The ULJ further found that Wal-Mart discharged Travis because he failed either to return to work after leaving to acquire the certificate. Record evidence supports these facts and is not disputed by Travis on appeal.

During the hearing, the Relator told the ULJ that his hand was still bothering him, therefore, he was not actively seeking employment and the Relator’s wife testified that because of his hand injury, he couldn’t do anything. Therefore, the Court upheld the ULJ’s decision that Travis is ineligible to receive benefits due to his unavailability for and failure to actively seek suitable employment.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial.

A14-0287  Jami Sternquist, Relator, vs. PAL Management, Inc., Respondent, Department  of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

 Summary:  In this certiorari appeal, relator requests reversal of the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she did not quit her employment due to a good reason caused by the employer. Relator argues that she had good reason to quit because (1) she was paid less due to her gender; (2) she was harassed by a consultant who acted in a supervisory role; and (3) she was uncomfortable managing her regional manager’s wife.

The ULJ determined that Sternquist was eligible for unemployment benefits from September 6 through September 14 because she was discharged from employment for reasons other thanemployment misconduct. But the ULJ determined that Sternquist was ineligible for unemployment benefits beginning September 15 because Sternquist notified Pawn America that she planned to quit her job as of September 19, and she quit for reasons other than a good reason caused by the employer. Sternquist requested reconsideration,and the ULJ affirmed her decision.

The Court of Appeals determined that the consultant’s nonsexual and sexual harassment, coupled with Pawn America’s failure to address Sternquist’s complaints when given a reasonable opportunity to do so, would compel an average, reasonable employee to quit and become unemployed.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the ULJ erred by determining that Sternquist did not have a good reason to quit caused by her employer.  Because the case was reversed based on the alleged sexual harassment and failure of the employer to respond, the Court of Appeals did not address Relator's other arguments.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, your best bet is to meet with an attorney who handles unemployment appeals to discuss your options.  To that end, I represent both applicants and employers in unemployment appeals.  Please call (763) 450-9494 today to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation. 


 
 
Picture
There was one decision on unemployment benefits this week from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The case highlights the importance of filing an appeal by the deadline stated in the Determination of Eligibility or Ineligibility.  If that deadline is missed, even if you have the best reasons for appealing, and your case is a real "slam dunk," the appeal is over.

A14-0483, Sherrie M. Aubin, Relator, vs. Family Dollar, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development,Respondent.

In this certiorari appeal, relator Sherrie M. Aubin argues that (1) the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) erred by concluding that she failed to file a timely appealand (2) respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development’s (DEED) online appeal system violated her due-process rights.  More specifically, because the online appeal system was not "affirmatively misleading," it was not an unconstitutional due process violation.  We affirm.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, your best bet is to meet with an attorney who handles unemployment appeals to discuss your options.  To that end, I represent both applicants and employers in unemployment appeals.  Please call (763) 450-9494 today to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.