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.
opened claim in 2008 received reg ui then received some EUC
opened claim in 2009 ran out of reg ui and went back to EUC from the 2008 claim
If that is the case then yes you would have to open a new claim if eligible. Most if not all states have interpreted the legislation as meaning you must be receiving EUC from a claim that ended after the date of legislation passing in 2010. You are receiving EUC from a claim that ended prior to the legislation. Unfair, but once again another problem with the federal gov't passing laws on programs that the states have to administer.
I guess a valid question, though, is should California and other states be interpreting it that way? Even if calculated upon the first claim year, EUC was still paid out with respect to the second benefit year, or kicked in once the second benefit year expired. Seems to me that states have an obligation to interpret this kind of legislation a little more broadly rather than narrowly, when so many rely upon them during a time of need like this.
In your opinion, should I challenge this, or would I be wasting my time?
I guess a valid question, though, is should California and other states be interpreting it that way? Even if calculated upon the first claim year, EUC was still paid out with respect to the second benefit year, or kicked in once the second benefit year expired. Seems to me that states have an obligation to interpret this kind of legislation a little more broadly rather than narrowly, when so many rely upon them during a time of need like this.
I'll jump in here until choosing comes back, with another Q. He can kill all the birds at one time.
So, if I understand choosing correctly, this narrow interpretation would mean that someone on his initial and only claim expiring June 2010 still collecting EUC extensions does NOT qualify for HR4213 when a quarterly wage reevaluation done in October 2010 or January 2011 qualifies him for a new, substantially lower claim?
That was definitely NOT the intent of HR4213. Although, the effective date language says:
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.
I would think continuation of benefits past the BYE date, in fact, actually implies an extension of that benefit year?
I'm now going through the long and arduous process of appealing my new unemployment award. Wish me luck.
By the way, I spoke to another representative at EDD who said that the directive to interpret the law the way they're interpreting it came from the U.S. Department of Labor. Anybody think this is actually true, or is it BS spoken by someone trying to give me the run-around?
By the way, I spoke to another representative at EDD who said that the directive to interpret the law the way they're interpreting it came from the U.S. Department of Labor. Anybody think this is actually true, or is it BS spoken by someone trying to give me the run-around?
Govt has a people who interpret the legislation and hand down guidelines to the states. The states make their own decisions on how to implement. CA is not the only state using this interpretation.
While you're at it, you might write your state representatives and let them know HR4213, as it is being applied in CA, is not helping anyone but those newly unemployed after July 22, 2009, a small number compared to those unemployed in 2007 and 2008.
Well when I get recalculated, which I anticipate will happen, I will appeal. I will invoke the 14th amendment, it might be a hail mary, but I don't care.
Well when I get recalculated, which I anticipate will happen, I will appeal. I will invoke the 14th amendment, it might be a hail mary, but I don't care.
Depending on whether or not this is a first claim, you may have a better result. SoCal on this thread had a 2008 claim, technically long expired well before the July 22, 2010 (CA is using July 24, 2010) date, which was recalculated sometime last year and an administrative law judge ruled in his favor.
If you are on EUC and your BYE date is June 2011 is the base period for wage qualification Jan-Mar 2010, Apr-June 2010, Jul-Sept 2010 and Oct-Dec 2010? If you do not qualify for a new claim at that point then they do a wage reevaluation in October 2011 what is the new base period for wages that they look at? Is it then Apr-June 2010, July-Sept 2010, Oct-Dec 2010 and Jan-Mar 2011?
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
I'll jump in here until choosing comes back, with another Q. He can kill all the birds at one time.
So, if I understand choosing correctly, this narrow interpretation would mean that someone on his initial and only claim expiring June 2010 still collecting EUC extensions does NOT qualify for HR4213 when a quarterly wage reevaluation done in October 2010 or January 2011 qualifies him for a new, substantially lower claim?
That was definitely NOT the intent of HR4213. Although, the effective date language says:
I would think continuation of benefits past the BYE date, in fact, actually implies an extension of that benefit year?
Hi Rebel, etal. I was hoping this would have settled down by now.
@Rebel, I'm a little confused. Was your November 2009 change a NEW claim with a NEW benefit amount? If the benefit amount changed in November 2009, and any extensions were based on that same amount, I don't see how the 2008 claim or benefits are relevant. You need to make sure that we're all talking about the same thing.
I had NO earnings during he first 12 months of my original claim, the "parent" claim. Therefore, the second year was called the "child claim" and it was that claim, to which I was only eligible for continued EUC that I can speak from. I began earning some wages during the child claim year, enough so that during one of the quarterly re-calculations, which they do every single quarter after the first full year, I eventually qualified for a new claim - ending my EUC before it was used up, and establishing a new benefit year - significantly reducing my benefits. This is WHY they passed HR 4213.
My ALJ found that I was eligible to exhaust all of my EUC before the new claim would go into effect. This has run its course, and I am now on the new claim. This starts a whole new cycle, 26 weeks of state benefits, then EUC, then Fed-EX, and so on. Any previous EUC is irrelevant.
IF I understand your history - You have been receiving benefits based on a calculation made in November 2009, moved over to EUC, and that claim year expired November 2010 - you are absolutely falling under the intent of HR 4213. Bring a copy of the law and show it to the ALJ. You couldn't possibly have used up your 99 weeks.
My situation was a little different ... but the ALJ found in my favor too. He completely ignored the expiration date of the claim year, which has been the factor that EDD has been hiding behind with some people.
I absolutely echo the comments in here that EDD is keeping their collective head in the sand on this. You need to be the expert when you go in - the law isn't that hard to read and understand, and hopefully you'll have a sympathetic ALJ who will consider your information.
(BTW: For the future benefit of anyone who wishes to cite my case, refer to Case #3481296, heard 1/05/2011 in Merced, by Michael J Ward, ALJ.) Not sure whether or not this will help.
To quote the ALJ from my ruling: "The department established a new claim for the claimant, not the claimant. When the department takes action such as this it must be construed to the best interest of the claimant. Under the circumstances, the claimant is entitled to exhaust all applicable emergency under code section insurance benefits payable prior to the claim year now established October 3, 2010. Under the law those benefits are deferred until the extended benefits otherwise applicable are exhausted." (October 3 was the start of the new claim year they forced on me)
I will remind anyone reading this that there is a long history of precedent in rulings in which EDD has been directed to skew their rulings in favor of the claimant whenever legally possible. At the risk of digressing, there is a whole 'nuther factor in the application of HR 4213 that isn't even relevant to us, but HUGE for California businesses and their unemployment reserve accounts. It's this simple: EUC comes from FEDERAL coffers. Regular compensation comes from state funds and state business reserve accounts. Why EDD isn't aggressively applying HR 4213 escapes me. The longer they put off spending state money, the better. Many of us will be fully employed soon enough.
SoCalAaron - I've been reading these threads and want to see if you can clarify a couple of things from HR4213.
1) My first claim was established 11/2009 and expired 11/2010. At which EDD evaluated my earnings and awarded me a NEW CLAIM. This claim expires 11/2011. I started EUC tier 1 before they awarded the new claim 11/2010. They've told me when my new claim runs out of money next week, that I will return to the EUC tier 1 and continue onto tier 2, etc. I will be almost done with tier 2 when the new claim expires in 11/2011. From reading the threads, it looks like I qualify for the deferment of the new claim until I've exhausted the EUC tier 2 and tier 3 (which I would qualify for before 1/1/2012). Then after Tier 3 funds are exhausted, I would then begin the third NEW claim that they would establish in 11/2011, but defer.
Is this correct?
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.
