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.
This is kind of related to another topic I posted on this board a little while ago.
I found myself in a situation where CA EDD claims that I don't qualify for a deferred claim under HR 4213 because my initial claim was started in Nov. 2008 (with the first benefit year running until Nov. 2009, of course).
California's interpretation of HR 4213 seems confusing. Here's the text of the law, for reference:
There's nothing specifically written about INITIAL benefit year or claim in the text of the law, but is the state basing their "rule" on the provision that EUC must be paid with respect to a given benefit year? Do they treat the EUC that I was receiving up until this quarter as being paid "with respect" to the first claim year (I received EUC during both claim years)?
Can anybody who knows more than me about this further elucidate? Do you think that I have sufficient grounds for an appeal? Thanks.
California is an impossible state to deal with when it comes to HR4213 and this issue comes up at least once a week on this board. I brought your other post here, as well. My comments in red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelx24
My claim in California, which initially began in Nov. 2008, has just been renewed again. It was renewed once before, in Nov. 2009, by which time I had earned at a high enough quarterly rate to not only qualify for a renewal, but for my weekly benefit amount to be similar to the original. This past November, however, I did not qualify for a renewal, since I had not made enough in any quarter of the candidate base period to qualify; however, my federal extension benefits were continued for the remainder of the quarter, as per rules and regulations. Now, at the beginning of this new quarter, my claim was renewed, since I had made just enough in the last quarter of the base period (ending Sep. 2010) to qualify. Problem is, my benefit amount has been cut down by about 83% (I was getting around 300 a week, now down to 52).
Apparently, I don't qualify for that deferred claim program (or so the person I spoke to on the phone said) because my INITIAL claim was filed before July 2009.
THAT IS INCORRECT. The reps at CA know NOTHING about HR4213 and its implementation. HR4213 applies to new benefit years established after July 22, 2010, the effective date of the legislation.
I'll be working a part-time job very shortly that should provide me with enough hours per week and enough money to pay the bills, so at least there's that. Problem is, that job's temporary, and will end around the beginning of March.
As a note, I did collect federal extension benefits in both the first and second years of my claim, and I think I still have several weeks remaining on the second tier.
From which claim? 2008 or 2009? The tiers from earlier claims are exhausted before the later tiers, even when there is a new claim in place.
Any recommendations on how to handle things here? Anybody know of any provisions or loopholes that might ensure that I get a decent weekly benefit amount if I haven't found a regular job by the end of my time working the part-time one?
HR4213 PROVIDES THIS PROTECTION. CALIFORNIA IS DELIBERATELY IGNORING IT. YOU NEED TO APPEAL.
Can this renewal of my claim somehow be cancelled, so that I can refile at the beginning of the next quarter (when my base period would include this past fall, when my wages were decent), or is that even advisable (would I lose potential fed-extension benefits or cause myself some other grief if I did)? Thanks.
You have no choice in the establishment of a third claim, but CA can defer payment under that new claim. However, since you qualify for state benefits under a third claim, you are no longer able to collect Fed-ED on the first claim or second claims, although you can exhaust the tiers from both claims - provided you have drawn on those EUC benefits before the establishment of a third claim.
In other words, if you are still exhausting tiers from the 2008 claim and have not yet drawn on the tier benefits from the 2009 claim, 2009 tiers are unavailable to you because of the third claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelx24
This is kind of related to another topic I posted on this board a little while ago.
I found myself in a situation where CA EDD claims that I don't qualify for a deferred claim under HR 4213 because my initial claim was started in Nov. 2008 (with the first benefit year running until Nov. 2009, of course).
California's interpretation of HR 4213 seems confusing. Here's the text of the law, for reference:
There's nothing specifically written about INITIAL benefit year or claim in the text of the law, but is the state basing their "rule" on the provision that EUC must be paid with respect to a given benefit year? Do they treat the EUC that I was receiving up until this quarter as being paid "with respect" to the first claim year (I received EUC during both claim years)?
Can anybody who knows more than me about this further elucidate? Do you think that I have sufficient grounds for an appeal? Thanks.
California is INTENTIONALLY ignoring and obstructing implementation of HR4213. CA has NOT established any protocol for interpretation of HR4213. You either get them to comply or you don't. There are no rules, loopholes or parameters. CA is counting on the fact that most people either don't know about HR4213 or won't have the energy to pursue their rights under that legislation. CA leaves the burden of implementation of HR4213 on you.
Read this thread in its entirety and, in particular, the last page. SoCal had to appeal and the administrative law judge all but laughed in the face of CA's reasoning.
Antrob appears to be one - possibly the only one - of those who has succeeded in FORCING CA to comply, but it is a ongoing effort.
Your only recourse is an appeal, a hearing and a friendly administrative law judge. Good luck. CA is not your friend on this issue.
ETA: One question for you, however. Which tier extensions were you collecting at the time the third claim was established - 2008 or 2009? Per this from another individual on this board who says he works on a team which interprets legislation for the states:
Quote:
Originally Posted by choosing78
If they are collecting EUC from a prior year's claim they do not get the 25% or $100 rule applied. Meaning if they had a claim in 2008 and received some euc, filed a new claim in 2009 but are now receiving EUC again from the 2008 claim, HR 4213 does not apply.
If the above is now true in CA, the CA rep may have been correct, but for the wrong reason. That said, I have NO faith in any comments made by a CA rep. You need to escalate this matter via an appeal.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 01-06-2011 at 06:25 PM..
As far as I know, what I was collecting was from the tiers associated with the benefit year beginning in November 2008. Might be wrong about this, but I believe so.
Does choosing78 know of some specific provision that the state has set forth that an unemployed individual can only qualify for a deferred claim if they were collecting on EUC tiers specifically tied to a claim INITIALLY filed after July 2009?
As far as I know, what I was collecting was from the tiers associated with the benefit year beginning in November 2008. Might be wrong about this, but I believe so.
Does choosing78 know of some specific provision that the state has set forth that an unemployed individual can only qualify for a deferred claim if they were collecting on EUC tiers specifically tied to a claim INITIALLY filed after July 2009?
I would suggest you send him a pm on this. Go to his post by clicking arrow in the quote, click on his name on upper lh corner, drop down menu gives you that option.
However, claims filed after July 2009 is not your real issue. The rep is completely wrong in what she told you. Of that I am positive. You have no idea how uninformed and thoroughly confused most of the UI reps are and not just in CA. Read a few of Antrob's earlier posts on that thread. And we have other instances of complete wrong info all over this board. It is amazing, not to mention alarming. As a general rule, it is wise to call several times. You will receive several answers.
In the end, the states choose how to implement the laws and regs, so even though you haven't yet accessed 2009 tiers, that doesn't mean CA won't allow you to or, for that matter, continue on 2008 tiers if you argue strongly enough.
In CA, in particular, the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, so your best course is to appeal. You have nothing to lose.
Let us know what choosing says if you get a reply.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 01-06-2011 at 07:52 PM..
I hope the appeal I'm about to file stands a chance. I think it's pretty reasonable to argue that the EUC benefits I've been receiving, though calculated based on the first claim year, were still PAID OUT with respect to this past benefit year, as they kicked in once the regular benefits expired, and were meant to take up the slack, so to speak. That makes sense, doesn't it?
I hope the appeal I'm about to file stands a chance. I think it's pretty reasonable to argue that the EUC benefits I've been receiving, though calculated based on the first claim year, were still PAID OUT with respect to this past benefit year, as they kicked in once the regular benefits expired, and were meant to take up the slack, so to speak. That makes sense, doesn't it?
You could wait another day or two for choosing to respond. He was last on the board on Jan. 2 (same drop down list allows you to check poster history) and probably will be back this weekend and will get your message then. He did say in another post that, in the end, final interpretation is still up to the states. Nowhere in the legislation does it say "claims established after July 2009" - it just says "a benefit year." I'll be interested in his comments on that.
The legislation reads in part:
Quote:
‘‘(1) If—
‘‘(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
So, based on the above, your argument sounds valid. From SoCal's post, it is clear CA, at present, is grasping at straws when it comes to HR4213.
Good luck.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 01-07-2011 at 02:23 PM..
Regarding the possibility of trying to "refile" later, which I asked about in my other post, what would happen if I just refused benefits now, via not sending in claim forms or something like that, and tried applying again once the next quarter rolls around (if I have no full-time position by then). I would certainly qualify, since the position I'm about to start is temporary, and the loss of work would be due to no fault of my own. Wonder if that's a viable route instead of trying to slog through all of this.
Regarding the possibility of trying to "refile" later, which I asked about in my other post, what would happen if I just refused benefits now, via not sending in claim forms or something like that, and tried applying again once the next quarter rolls around (if I have no full-time position by then). I would certainly qualify, since the position I'm about to start is temporary, and the loss of work would be due to no fault of my own. Wonder if that's a viable route instead of trying to slog through all of this.
Refusing benefits will not void the establishment of this claim, I do not think. The states are required to perform a claim reevaluation quarterly when someone is receiving EUC. That is why CA opened the new claim for you. It is not your option. Which is why the administrative law judge in SoCal's case laughed at CA's argument that SoCal had initiated this new claim.
That said, some states do allow one to withdraw their claim if benefits have not yet been paid. I have heard of this only on first claims, however. I do not know if CA is one of those states.
You might try calling EDD - perhaps several times until you get a friendly and KNOWLEDGEABLE agent - to see if this is an option for you in CA - withdrawing that third claim and refiling later. Since you did not have sufficient earnings to qualify for a new claim in November, it might not be too late.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 01-07-2011 at 04:05 PM..
Hello. Let me clarify some of your information. You opened a claim in Nov 2008. You opened another in Nov 2009. You said you collected EUC from both. So that would lead me to believe you had exhausted EUC from your first claim. Do you know what tier you were onin November 2010? Meaning in November 2010 you could have been on tier 3 and now have ran out of EUC. HR 4213 wouldn't apply to SEB (which I think Ariadne was getting at). Do you have your original award letter from your Nov 2009 claim?
At the moment, I can't seem to locate the claim announcement from Nov. 2009. However, the EUC I was collecting was left over from my first claim year, and I was still on the second extension when this new claim was filed for me on the second of this month.
Is there a potential issue because the EUC was left over from my first claim year? Seems to me, though, that the EUC, though calculated upon the first claim year, was still being paid out WITH RESPECT TO my second claim year. Unfortunately, having the words "with respect to" in the text of the law leaves things a little bit vague, and I wonder if the state is actively interpreting that phrase as meaning "calculated based upon", or just not really going by any proper interpretation at all (read: willfully ignoring federal law), as board member antrob seems to think.
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.
