Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
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?
Because there are millions out 'there' that don't visit boards like these and just take whatever is handed to them by EDD and other states, without question. It is easier for EDD to follow the suggested rules handed down by the govt. - than apply the law in a way favorable to claimants. SoCal had a very unusual and favorable outcome given how other CA and many other states are now applying HR4213 to everyone else.
Because there are millions out 'there' that don't visit boards like these and just take whatever is handed to them by EDD and other states, without question. It is easier for EDD to follow the suggested rules handed down by the govt. - than apply the law in a way favorable to claimants. SoCal had a very unusual and favorable outcome given how other CA and many other states are now applying HR4213 to everyone else.
Until they get screwed and they find that their weekly benefits dropped to $40/week from $250.
That's the thing about most people. Everyone thinks their lives are fine and peachy until they're finally at the receiving end of the stick. No one thinks to take precautions until it's too late.
Except for this at Sec. 3(b) which contradicts Sec. 3(a)(g)(1)(A)-(D) :
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.
As I understand it, the parent claim is the original claim. After year one, I had no earnings, so EDD filed a new claim, found that I had no eligible earnings, and denied the new claim in it's entirety.
Technically, I was still continuing the original claim (and EUC)and all the conditions of Section three are met in my case:
(A) an individual has been determined to be entitled to emergency unemployment compensation with respect to a benefit year,
(B) that benefit year has expired,
(C) that individual has remaining entitlement to emergency unemployment compensation with respect to that benefit year, and
(D) that individual would qualify for a new benefit year in which the weekly benefit amount of regular compensation is at least either $100 or 25 percent less than the individual's weekly benefit amount in the benefit year referred to in subparagraph (A),
When the EDD filed a new claim for me, based on more recent quarterly earnings, I argued that I had an option to refuse this new claim based on HR 4213 - and the ALJ agreed. He found that the state did not have the right to force me to file a new claim, based on Subsection (2)(D)
`(D) The State shall determine rights to emergency unemployment compensation without regard to any rights to regular compensation if the individual elects to not file a claim for regular compensation under the new benefit year.'.
Here's an additional point: Perhaps the creation of "a new benefit year" is the same as deliberately expiring an old benefit year? This goes beyond my research at this time, and I have no need to argue it unless the state appeals the ruling ... I'm hoping they don't do that.
As I've said earlier - anyone who has their benefits reduced $100/25% based on the state filing a new claim (and claim year) on their behalf needs to appeal. You don't have to accept it. This whole mess didn't start until October 1st rolled around and the state did their quarterly review - the new law changed the rules - and they weren't ready.
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.
I'd appeal. Especially if they file the claim for you. Read through my threads.
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.
That means you grossed around $2,288 in your highest quarter. Why didn't you invoke H.R. 4213 in a possible appeal?
I filed my original on 3/1/09 which expired on 2/27/10. The EDD open up a new claim with for me (I think) on 2/28/10 which expires on 2/26/11.
During that entire period of time, I have worked two temp jobs earning on earning enough money to recalculated to lower amount. However, since my highest quarterly earning was still high enough to keep at the max benefit amount I did not get a lesser amount.
Even though a new claim was open for me (I think), I was put back on the teirs. My check stub still has 2/27/10 expiration date, even though my new claim notice paper work (with new EDD booklet) has 2/26/11 as my expiration date. So I think I'm getting EUC from my 3-1-09 original claim.
Do you think they kept me on my EUC tiers because my new claim amount and tier amounts was the same amount $ 450 a week?
BTW, I will be complete 79 weeks of EUC on 2/19/11, which is a week before my 2/26/11 2nd benefit year expiration date.
I will be entitled to at least one week EB/Fed-Ed benefits before a new claim is opened by the EDD.
I was told that if a 3rd claim is open, probably on 2/26/11 or shortly their after, that will automatically disqualify me for EB/Fed-ED. So I might qualify for one week.
You are not eligible for the DNCP program, the benefit year end date of your parent claim is before 7/24/10. You can not continue to be paid on the federal extension, you are now on the new claim.
I plan to write to my Congressman and Senator about it. Right now I have a part-time job where I'm getting a lot of hours. As soon as it slows down, and I get a break, I'll write my letters.
You are not eligible for the DNCP program, the benefit year end date of your parent claim is before 7/24/10. You can not continue to be paid on the federal extension, you are now on the new claim.
From what I gather, reading different post from what seems to be very knowledgeable folks about this UI process, is that above is a matter of interpretation by the states of new H.R. 4213 or EUC fix, because the law itself doesn't no specify which benefit year.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
