U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 02-05-2011, 09:39 AM
 
15 posts, read 29,326 times
Reputation: 12
CA opened a new claim on me while I was in the middle of Tier III EUC, about 22 months after the filing date of my original parent claim, essentially cutting off the EUC before I used it up. The resulting adjustment reduced my benefits below the trigger point the law specifies, therefore the ALJ held that I can use up the EUC prior to being placed (or choosing to file) a new claim.

There is no retroactive provisions in the law, is this what you are referencing? My read is that you can finish of your EUC before filing a new claim ... so the date seems like a fluid point. But if they converted you prior to the date the law was filed, this may indeed be appropriate as there are not any reach-back provisions.

There is no mention of parent claim expiry dates in the law, and technically, my parent claim expired six months prior. The only reason I was where I was at was because of intervening employment had prolonged my EUC.

Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to read about it. Thanks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 02-05-2011, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
12,348 posts, read 14,326,817 times
Reputation: 5594
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalAaron View Post
CA opened a new claim on me while I was in the middle of Tier III EUC, about 22 months after the filing date of my original parent claim, essentially cutting off the EUC before I used it up. The resulting adjustment reduced my benefits below the trigger point the law specifies, therefore the ALJ held that I can use up the EUC prior to being placed (or choosing to file) a new claim.

Well, this decision is interesting, because others on this board are saying CA refuses to apply HR4213 if the actual bye on the parent (first) claim occurred before July 24, 2010. If you were drawing EUC for 22 months, your parent claim had 'expired' well before July 24, 2010. So, HR4213 is still be administered for others contrary your appeal decision.

There is no retroactive provisions in the law, is this what you are referencing? My read is that you can finish of your EUC before filing a new claim ... so the date seems like a fluid point. But if they converted you prior to the date the law was filed, this may indeed be appropriate as there are not any reach-back provisions.

No, this involves people who were converted after July 22, 2010.

There is no mention of parent claim expiry dates in the law, and technically, my parent claim expired six months prior. The only reason I was where I was at was because of intervening employment had prolonged my EUC.

Exactly the situation for others on this board, but they are being denied. However, most but not all have more than one EUC claim. That is why I asked if this was your only claim.

Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to read about it. Thanks!

Here is the experience of one claimant in CA with multiple claims:

Help with Multiple EUC08 claims

But we have had other reports from people with single claims being told the same thing. I can't locate them right now.
....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-05-2011, 03:12 PM
 
118 posts, read 256,523 times
Reputation: 98
Just to add another story to this thread even though my situation is simpler than some of the others here (I do have an older claim filed in 2008, but since I never went onto EUC with that claim, it's not really an issue).

Here's the message I sent to EDD through their online system (https://askedd.edd.ca.gov/asp/frmEDDCOMM.aspx) and using the "Stop Benefits or Cancel Claim" category since that was the only topic that was applicable that also allowed me to send a message instead of just forwarding me to their FAQ page.

Quote:
I only wish to cancel my claim if it means that I am able to return to my previous claim under the Deferred New Claimant program. My initial benefit year for that previous claim ended on 01-01-2011 and I filed a new claim as instructed, however the weekly benefit amount of this new claim is $112 while my previous claim's WBA was $221. Under section 3 of Federal Public Law 111-205 (also known as H.R. 4213) my weekly benefit amount cannot be reduced in this way, so I am requesting a return to my previous WBA. If that requires the cancelation of my new claim, then I request that as well. My understanding is that California EDD is implementing this section of P.L. 111-205 with a program called the Deferred New Claimant program. Please respond as soon as possible since my first continued claim form for this new claim with the reduced WBA was supposed to be sent in on 01-30-2011, but I am holding it back so that I can still cancel the claim if necessary.
Their reply, received within a couple days:
Quote:
We have continued on your EXTENSION, your weekly benefit award will be $221.00. Your check is being processed for week ending 01-08-11. Kind Regards, Susie
So it seems that at least in simple cases involving only one past claim, California EDD is now doing what they're supposed to do, though it's up to you to make sure that they do, which is still pretty ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-05-2011, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow....
8,137 posts, read 10,102,142 times
Reputation: 4426
I'm in the same boat. My benefits were reduced to $88 per week, due to my part time jobs. I was told in an email that I wasn't eligible for the DNCP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-05-2011, 11:37 PM
 
15 posts, read 29,326 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by moved View Post
I'm in the same boat. My benefits were reduced to $88 per week, due to my part time jobs. I was told in an email that I wasn't eligible for the DNCP.
At least you found some one who had heard of it.

A few questions: Where you receiving emergency compensation? What tier? What was the date they reduced the benefits - or filed a new claim pn your behalf?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-05-2011, 11:49 PM
 
15 posts, read 29,326 times
Reputation: 12
@ Ariadne - Interesting comparisons, but purely rhetorical as I was still receiving benefits on the first claim, not dealing with two claims. That person should have gotten a ruling in appeal, just to see if there was any room for addressing the administrative error that apparently occurred. EDD grants wide discretion in interpreting rules in favor of claimants.

As to your quote of the effective date of the law, your interpretation directly contradicts the language of Section 3, subsection (g) (1) (A) through (D), which specifically states that it covers people whose benefit year has expired (B) and has remaining entitlement (C).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-06-2011, 01:15 AM
 
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow....
8,137 posts, read 10,102,142 times
Reputation: 4426
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalAaron View Post
At least you found some one who had heard of it.

A few questions: Where you receiving emergency compensation? What tier? What was the date they reduced the benefits - or filed a new claim pn your behalf?
I'm in CA. I filed my third claim on January 1 of this year. My 2009 benefits were $288 per week, my 2010 benefits were 231 per week, and my 2011 benefits are $88 per week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-06-2011, 03:19 AM
 
379 posts, read 601,473 times
Reputation: 383
I just wanted to chime in regarding this topic and establishing a new claim year.

My BYE is coming up in March and if I were to file as expected, it may trigger the start of a third benefit year for me. I cannot establish a third benefit year because it would reduce my benefits to the point where I would be barely able to scrape by, as if I'm able to do it as it is... Anyway, in another thread, Ariadne suggested that I stop my claiming benefits and re-file when the base period would be in my favor.

Currently, EDD uses the quarter system to determine the base period. For example, if you were to apply between Jan-Mar 2011, they would go back to Oct-Dec 2009 to start the base period. However, if you were to file between Apr-Jun, then it would be Jan-Mar 2010 would be the start of the base period.

In my case, I think I had some income that might trigger the start of a third benefit year because I did some work between Oct-Dec 2009. My plan now is to stop claiming at the end of this month as my BYE is in March on my parent claim (and my second benefit year). Then I would just re-file in late April or early May to avoid establishing third benefit year.

With the ongoing conversation, I can't believe that EDD has been having such a hard time implementing HR4213, regardless of how the law is interpreted. Why is it that many of us have to jump through these hoops just to avoid an unfavorable situation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-06-2011, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
12,348 posts, read 14,326,817 times
Reputation: 5594
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalAaron View Post
At least you found some one who had heard of it.

A few questions: Where you receiving emergency compensation? What tier? What was the date they reduced the benefits - or filed a new claim pn your behalf?
His situation is discussed at length here:

New claim, and benefits went way down!

He is on his third claim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-06-2011, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
12,348 posts, read 14,326,817 times
Reputation: 5594
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalAaron View Post
As to your quote of the effective date of the law, your interpretation directly contradicts the language of Section 3, subsection (g) (1) (A) through (D), which specifically states that it covers people whose benefit year has expired (B) and has remaining entitlement (C).
Except for this at Sec. 3(b) which contradicts Sec. 3(a)(g)(1)(A)-(D) :
Quote:
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to individuals whose benefit years, as described in section 4002(g)(1)(B) the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110–252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note), as amended by this section, expire after the date of enactment of this Act.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...213enr.txt.pdf
CA and PA have told people if their parent claim expires prior to July 22, 2010 (in CA's case they are saying AFTER July 24, 2010), they are not eligible. The fact that EUC had been paid on that claim did not have an effect since the actual bye date was PRIOR to date of enactment.

Which is why I find it very interesting that your administrative law judge found differently. However, yours was an early case and he apparently understood the INTENT of the law and was not interpreting it literally.

The question for me is what is considered an expiration date of a benefit year if one continues to draw EUC on that claim. One could argue - as happened in your case - the fact that EUC benefits were paid on the 2008 claim implies the claim had not expired, but, in fact, had been extended.

This is why we have lawyers.


Last edited by Ariadne22; 02-06-2011 at 10:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top