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.
Plus, there is the other questions like: Did you look for work? (were you still doing that while working full time) Were you available for work? (would have have actually been able to accept CA employment if offerred to you while working the full-time KY job)
Oh, indeed. More lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chyvan
Since you were performing the KY work in CA, you'd have had a much better chance saying, "I did no work, I've been in CA the whole time, and these KY wages are from some identify thief or illegal using my documents."
I thought unemployment benefits are earned benefits and are used state to state. Like you stated prior, I was clueless and had no intention to defraud the system.
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]PLEASE HELP WITH SOME ADVICE!! Please read below which I had submitted to Unemployment Appeals Judge on June 12, 2013:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]"I would liketo appeal the CA EDD Notice of Overpayment based off their Notice of Determination letterdecision dated 5-6-13 for unemployment benefits. I was working in Southern California but my paystub shows I was a registered Kentucky employee and paid Kentucky StateIncome tax to that state. I was notaware I couldn’t collect my California Unemployment benefits while registeredas an employee in Kentucky and collecting income in that state. Was Kentucky supposed to inform California ofemployment and why didn’t they do so? This appears to be an interstate clerical error on Kentucky’s end andCalifornia as well. I am not a frequentunemployment collector as some people are and from my past workexperience I have only collected unemployment benefits one other time prior tomy UI claim current claim in question and that was from August 2004 to March 2005.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I do notwish to pay the penalty portion on this Notice of Determination because a “willfulfalse statement was not made nor was relevant information withheld†on my part. This was an interstate clerical error onKentucky’s end for not correctly informing California of employment. I did not have the specific intent to defraudand I did not know I couldn’t collect my earned California unemploymentbenefits while I was registered as an employee in Kentucky paying taxes to thatstate. I sincerely believed I wassubmitting a bonafide, honest claim on my end. If I recall from my last unemployment from August 2004 to March 2005,when I started working for that employer on March 7, 2005 my unemployment benefits wereimmediately cancelled by CA EDD. Since myunemployment benefits were not cancelled immediately on October 8, 2012 when Istarted with previous company I thought I could still collect them based off thefact that I was a registered employee of the state of Kentucky and paying stateincome tax to them. As you can see thisis a clerical issue on the part of Kentucky for not informing California of myemployment. I did not have the intent oncommitting fraud against California Unemployment and I didn’t provide a“willful false statement nor was relevant information withheldâ€. As I stated prior, I sincerely believed I wassubmitting a bonafide, honest claim on my end.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]That beingsaid, I would like to pay back the money I owe which I had tallied up to$11,700 but would like to dispute the penalty portion on the Noticeof Overpayment. I came up with agrand total of $11,700 based off the benefits I collected during my recent employment which began on October8, 2012 and ended on April 9, 2013"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Now they are saying I owe $11,700 plus 30% and I am disqualified for 15 weeks from April 21, 2013 on collecting any new benefits. I will pay back the $11,700 but I would like to dispute the penalty portion of this and the disqualification period because in all honesty I did not know I couldn't collect benefits in CA while registered as employee in state of KY. What are my options? I had already appealed but I had a hearing on June 11 and the judge sided with CA EDD, but I want to appeal that decision. Please help because I need to have this appeal filed within 20 calendar days of June 13, 2013. Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
Help me get past this: Each week when you filed your claim form, you had to answer the question "did you work or earn any wages whether you were paid or not?" And, in order to get benefits, you had to say no...so, how was it that you did not commit fraud? I am guessing you were aware that you were going to work, so there is the willful and knowing part, too.
The foregoing are the most creative excuses I've heard yet for unemployment fraud.
Further, the immaturity, sense of entitlement, and unwillingness to accept personal responsibility leaves me wondering why CA isn't prosecuting you criminally.
"It's KY's fault for not reporting to CA." What????
"I thought because I was paying taxes in KY, I could still collect benefits from CA." What????
One does not need to be an experienced beneficiary of unemployment benefits to know that unemployment benefits are paid when you are unemployed - not when you are working. You are educated enough to know not to assume what happened in 2004 - eight years ago - would happen again in 2012.
You are literate. You can read. The claim form asks "Did you work, or earn any money?" Simple question. Nowhere on the form or in the CA handbook does it state "Did you work or earn any money in the State of California." Or, "work or wages earned in another state are excluded." If it were the case, CA would have said so. Absolutely.
You are extremely lucky this happened in CA. Another state like Texas, AZ, NC, etc. might very well have you in court for unemployment fraud. It appears, based on the penalties, CA was within an inch of doing that. Consider yourself fortunate all CA wants from you is money.
Unemployment...I do not think that word means what OP thinks it means.
Following is an update from OP which was posted tonight, in such a rude and offensive manner, it was removed.
However, the result is instructive, so it is being reposted, sans objectionable language, to which I've added Chyvan's initial comments on this ruling, as well. I'm sure, she'll have others:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthonygr80
When appealing the ALJ decision the appeals board overruled everything the ALJ said and sided with me. I still owe the overpayment which is fine but the disqualification and penalty portion is removed. They cited PB224, PB418, and PB137 in overruling the ALJ in my favor.
My advice to you is when someone comes onto this site to post a legitimate concern please don't try and laugh and say I was committing fraud when my case was unique in itself. Here is the facts of my case I originally submitted and everyone laughed at me:
"I would like to appeal the Notice of Overpayment based off the Notice of Determination letter decision dated 5-6-13 for unemployment benefits. If you see from my attached paystub from 10-15-12, it shows I was a registered Kentucky employee and paid Kentucky State Income tax to that state. I was not aware I couldn’t collect my California Unemployment benefits while registered as an employee in Kentucky and collecting income in that state. Was Kentucky supposed to inform California of employment and why didn’t they do so? This appears to be an interstate clerical error on Kentucky’s end and California as well. I am not a frequent unemployment collector as some people are and as you can see from my past work experience I have only collected unemployment benefits one other time prior to my UI claim with ******* and that was from August 2004 to March 2005 when I previously worked at *********. I actually take pride in that fact because I am 32 years old and a lot of people my age have collected unemployment benefits numerous times by my age.
I do not wish to pay the penalty portion on this Notice of Determination because a “willful false statement was not made nor was relevant information withheld†on my part. This was an interstate clerical error on Kentucky’s end for not correctly informing California of employment. I did not have the specific intent to defraud and I did not know I couldn’t collect my earned California unemployment benefits while I was registered as an employee in Kentucky paying taxes to that state. I sincerely believed I was submitting a bonafide, honest claim on my end. If I recall from my last unemployment from August 2004 to March 2005, when I started working for ******* on March 7, 2005 my unemployment benefits were immediately cancelled. Since my unemployment benefits were not cancelled immediately on October 8, 2012 when I started with ********* I thought I could still collect them based off the fact that I was a registered employee of the state of Kentucky and paying state income tax to them. As you can see this is a clerical issue on the part of Kentucky for not informing California of my employment. I did not have the intent on committing fraud against California Unemployment and I didn’t provide a “willful false statement nor was relevant information withheldâ€. As I stated prior, I sincerely believed I was submitting a bonafide, honest claim on my end.
That being said, I would like to pay back the money I owe which I had tallied up to $11,700 but would like to dispute the penalty portion on the Notice of Overpayment. I came up with a grand total of $11,700 based off my employment at ********** which began on October 8, 2012 and ended on April 9, 2013 (see attached employment agreement and separation agreement).
I would like to dispute the overpayments you have listed on 10/06/2012 for $450 because I didn’t work on 09/30/2012 to 10-07-2012 (see attached employment agreement)
I would like to dispute the overpayments you have listed on for the week of 04/13/2013 for $450 and the week 04/20/2013 for $450 because my last day of employment was April 9, 2013 and did not work after that date (see attached severance agreement).
The valid overpayments I had tallied up at $11,700 are below:
10/13/2012 at $450
10/20/2012 at $450
10/27/2012 at $450
11/03/2012 at $450
11/10/2012 at $450
11/17/2012 at $450
11/24/2012 at $450
12/01/2012 at $450
12/08/2012 at $450
12/15/2012 at $450
12/22/2012 at $450
12/29/2012 at $450
01/05/2013 at $450
01/12/2013 at $450
01/19/2013 at $450
01/26/2013 at $450
02/02/2013 at $450
02/09/2013 at $450
02/16/2013 at $450
02/23/2013 at $450
03/02/2013 at $450
03/09/2013 at $450
03/16/2013 at $450
03/23/2013 at $450
03/30/2013 at $450
04/06/2013 at $450
Total = $11,700
While I am appealing this Notice of Overpayment and Notice of Determination, and awaiting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, I would like to continue to send my claim forms to EDD for my unemployment claim based off unemployment date of April 9, 2013. Please send appropriate claim forms from 04-09-2013 to present so you can have them on file. Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from you."
This from a DM from Chyvan:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chyvan
Every single cited case was listed in a table under "False statement." They were all on point.
While the ALJ was incredulous, as were we, the board had to have agreed that this person was truly clueless.
I think the posting needs to be reposted with all the name calling removed, and the key element it brings out is that CA EDD and possibly too many of the lower level ALJs inappropriately apply the "false statement" penalty, and everyone and anyone that is assessed one needs to fight it.
Fwiw, imo, this OP is too smart to be so uninformed. I still don't believe him and neither did the original ALJ, although, her ruling was overturned by a panel which was wiling to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I know I was rather incredulous with the original facts of the case, but I wasn't at the hearing, and I didn't get to get to read the transcript.
However, the board of review has spoken, and I think the one thing that we can take away from this is that it takes more than a hint, suspicion, or "should have known" to be hit with CA's brutal "false statement" penalty.
This claimant knew in his heart that intent was missing, and kept going through the process. I may have said or suggested before in other threads, it's not over until you give up or hit the end of the appeal road. Statistically speaking, things are not in your favor once you've had your appeal tribunal, but people still do get wins or partial wins.
In this case, the claimant may have spent an hour or not much more, and saved himself $3,000 in penalty fees, so it can absolutely be worth the time and effort, even when others think it looks bleak as many of the posters here did.
In your preeditted post, you were pretty harsh on us. Trust me, even as editted, the message is clear if you disagree with us, continue on, and prove us wrong, and come back and brag about it. I love to be educated on this stuff so that I give better advice to people. Those case cites are going to come in handy if another CA claimant goes through something similar, and I'm going to remember them and use them.
If it's not too much trouble, Anthony, would you please post the written decision. It can really help other claimants going to the board with the items that will help shape a favorable decision.
When people come online seeking help, please don't shoo them off next time and make them feel like idiots when they are already at a low point.
FYI, Chyvan how do I attach photo or scanned judgment to share? Sorry for being harsh with comments I just felt so vindicated by the ruling that I had to craft a response to the mean comments I had received when I was in dire need of help.
By the way, I did all the research on the Precedent Decisions myself which took a little bit of time and then I had a lawyer friend help me craft the appeal letter. I knew the appeal was going off of the original transcript and new evidence couldn't be submitted but I added the letter below to help get my point across in which the ALJ didn't see initially from my perspective. To correct you, I saved almost $4000 in penalties and all the money that I should of received but didn't due to my disqualification is being applied to my overpayment balance. Instead of owing $17,00, I will be left with a balance of under $6000 which is a tremendous weight off of my shoulders. I have an unemployment claim from April 23 in which I haven't seen one dime of it due to DQ (4 months at $1800 a month) is another $7200 which is being reverted back to me....well the principal balance of the overpayment which is fine with me. The overpayment is the CA's money and I want to resolve that debt as soon as I get back to work.
What I had originally posted is what I read verbatim at the initial hearing. I then submitted this along with my appeal request.
"To Whom It May Concern,
After reviewing the ALJ decision, which was heard on June 12, 2013 and decision mailed to me on June 13, 2013, I do not disagree with the decision on cases: 4872945, 4872948, 4877285 and 4882475. For the weeks it was determined that I was ineligible to receive benefits I would like to pay back the full benefit amount given to me. However, I do disagree with ALJ’s decision and would like to appeal the following cases: 4872946, 4872947, 4877286, 4882474, 4882476, 4882477, and 4877284, with regard to the disqualification of benefits and penalty of 30%.
Case No: 4872946, 4877286, 4882476, 4877284 hold claimant disqualified for benefits under UI Code 1257(a) for 15 weeks. I did not realize my employment in Kentucky while residing in California was a relevant fact. When I provided my answers on the weekly claim form that I was not receiving wages for said weeks, it was a simple error on my part and I was honestly stating that I was not working or receiving wages in California. I believed that unemployment benefits were state to state benefits.
I ask that the CUIAB reference Benefit Decision 4707 and give me the benefit of doubt under the “presumption that he is innocent”. As was previously ruled in Benefit Decision 5904, “we held that simple neglect or an innocent mistake will not support a finding of a willful misstatement or omission on the part of a claimant”. In my dispute, it was simply an “innocent mistake” in which I was unaware of any additional information required for my claim.
Under PB418, it is declared that “actual knowledge of falsity is a necessary element in benefit preclusion cases under the above statute, the legislature has chosen to provide a shield for those claimants” whose “unfamiliarity with fine points of law, innocently exposes them to forfeiture of unemployment insurance benefits”. Just because one has a degree in Business or Computers does not ensure the fact that they know and understand the complexities of unemployment law as the ALJ suggests. I am unfamiliar with unemployment rules and regulations. Information of this sort was not taught to me in college. Therefore, I honestly believed I was providing accurate information.
Under PB216, it “held the claimant was not subject to disqualification under section 1257(a) of the code where he fails to reveal complete info because of a simple error” (Benefit Decision Number: 5904 & 6387). I feel this was a simple error because my work is in sales not law. I am unfamiliar with the complexities of the law and did not find it necessary to research before filling out the answers to the claim.
In addition to the above statements, I also disagree with the penalty portion of the ALJ’s decision for cases: 4872947, 4882474, and 4882477. It did not occur to me that such information was a material fact. I honestly did not believe I was making a false statement with regards to employment on my weekly claim form. I believed I was providing accurate information; I did not answer the claim deliberately or purposefully to make a false statement (PB436). I did not believe that such information would question my entitlement to benefits.
Under PB216, it “held the claimant was not subject to disqualification under section 1257(a) of the code where he fails to reveal complete info because of a simple error” (Benefit Decision: 5904 & 6387). I ask that you find for the claimant because this dispute is simply an error on my part in which I did not find such information to be material to my claim. I did not willfully or knowingly withhold information pertinent to this unemployment claim."
Last edited by Anthonygr80; 08-08-2013 at 03:20 PM..
Reason: Add on from previously deleted text
So, we now have Anthony's well-researched and well-crafted argument.
Anthony, can you now post the actual finding/decision from the CUIAB?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chyvan
However, the board of review has spoken, and I think the one thing that we can take away from this is that it takes more than a hint, suspicion, or "should have known" to be hit with CA's brutal "false statement" penalty.
Clearly, CA is getting away with murder on their mickey mouse misapplication of "false statement" penalties. If CA can forgive failure to report earnings resulting in an overpayment of $11,700 on the basis of this:
Quote:
Under PB418, it is declared that “actual knowledge of falsity is a necessary element in benefit preclusion cases under the above statute, the legislature has chosen to provide a shield for those claimants” whose “unfamiliarity with fine points of law, innocently exposes them to forfeiture of unemployment insurance benefits”.
their current behavior on "laid off" v. "discharge" is laughable.
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.
