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.
Checking in to update that yes I am still unemployed and close to running out of benefits. I had my BYE call in last Wednesday and while on the phone applying for a new benefit year I was told to file this Sunday for one week and then every two weeks after that. I asked the agent when the denial would be done as I had not worked in a year. She told me right away and that I would just the three remaining weeks of my EUC benefits left.
I received a letter yesterday stating I had filed a new claim and was given a new booklet to record job contacts in. So today I get three letters. The first one is my determination of monetary eligibility. It goes on to say that my 10/1/11 to 12/31/11 earnings were 4876.00 and my second quarter earnings for 1/1/12 to 3/31/12 was 5767.00 for a total of 10643.00. There are no earnings shown on quarters 4/1/12 to 6/30/12 and 7/1/12 to 9/30/12. The letter then goes on to say that based on these amounts my new basic weekly benefit would be 241.00 plus a 16.00 dependent allowance of 16.00 totaling 257.00 per week which is 111.00 less per week than I get now. It states my maximum payable benefits is 6266.00 effective from 2/25/13 to 2/24/14 and has a determination date of 2/27/13.
There is a blurb below a few paragraphs that states that " Unemployment Insurance Benefits may not be paid until proof of wages earned since 2/26/12 are provided. You will receive an appointment notice to discuss these wages". Why do they go through all of this if I don't qualify. Letter two was to be filled out and returned with whether I wanted State or Federal taxes taken out. Letter three was to tell me to file on 3/3/13 .
Sending stuff like this could really get ones hopes up only to have them crushed a week or two later. I was told over the phone I would be denied and revert so these letters seem almost cruel. Is this standard practice in all states or is it just because Maryland is nuts?
Thankfully I have my tax refund in the bank and I just requested to cash in one of my life insurance policies. I was awarded a Pell Grant for 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. I return for four mini-session classes on the 25th of March and will be taking four in the summer as well to use up all the 2012/2013 funds. Then in August I will move to next years Pell and hopefully will get some state aid as well. I am hoping the 8k I have now will keep me afloat until September and I am considering taking loans to cover expenses after that.
It would be awesome to get unemployment again but it really gets me that they send you all this stuff making you think you will have a new claim and then I just get to wait until they yank it out from underneath me. It also makes me wonder how long this is going to hold up getting the last three weeks of EUC.
Ummm...so what's the problem? Looks like you qualified for a new claim. What am I missing?
I have not worked for a different employer since last year so from what I have read on here as well as what unemployment office said when I did my BYE I should be denied. It may very well end up that way but knowing Maryland it will take a month before they decide that. It just seems incredibly wasteful to send all these letters, schedule telephone inquiries etc. I should only have three weeks left. I swear and we wonder why the government is so messed up. It is the most inefficient, redundant, wasteful institution of all. The manpower and time that will get wasted on this makes me just sigh and shake my head.
If you worked in 2012, you very likely DO have a claim at the BYE. In fact, the paperwork you were sent states that you do....
I am confused as to why you are confused....
And, out of curiosity, what does working for a different employer have to do with anything?
I thought you have to have new wages earned from after your original separation date. Since my previous employer has already paid me 26 weeks, then I think they're done. Who knows I could be way off base on this. It's been a very long day. Hoping someone who may have had a similar scenario might chime in and share their experience.
Princess, you are correct. If you have not worked since filing your claim, you are not eligible for a new claim.
MD has done a recertification and determined - erroneously - you have a new claim. Happens all the time. In another week or so you should receive a letter from MD correcting this error.
Invalid claims occur in almost every state at recertification. The computers pick up earnings from your lag period (earnings from your previous employer not used to establish your base-year) and base a new claim on that - even though you have not worked since you filed. These claims are usually declared invalid a week later.
Invalid claims happen a lot in CA. Just recently happened in NJ, when claimant was positive her lag earnings would qualify her for a new claim even though she had not worked. She then received a letter from NJ with her monetary determination and weekly benefit. A week later she got a letter from NJ saying she didn't have enough earnings to qualify for a new claim.
You should be getting one of those, too. Although, MD being as incompetent as they are, who knows. They might let this one fall between the cracks.
If you are allowed to collect on this claim, be aware at some point later MD may come back to you asking for repayment of this "no-fault overpayment." No-fault overpayments also happen frequently in many states. Some states will allow hardship waivers and not ask for repayment. IMO, you are more likely to get a hardship waiver on federal benefits than state - since this money is coming out of MD's coffers.
In the past week, we've heard from three NJ claimants who it appears will now be collecting EUC on claims which expired in January. If NJ proceeds to pay these people, all of them will be in what I call no-fault overpayment land - unless NJ, due to its high UE rate, somehow has managed to get a waiver from the DOL allowing these payments.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 03-03-2013 at 12:54 AM..
This is not always the case. In one of my many laps, I had to fight with CA about not lowering my benefits. I had not worked since the claim was filed but had wages reported in a new quarter and CA said they would be using those as the quarter had not been used for the filing of a claim. Took me about a month to get them to agree to use the determination that it was less than 25% of my original claim. The darn thing is still sitting there waiting for me too...keep joking that if I can just manage to make it until May of this year, it should go away on its own...not that I am thinking my job is at risk. And in all that time, with all of the million supervisors, people in overpayments, and others, not one of them said that the claim would be invalid because it was from the same employer...in fact, I was told that the employer was not relevant, rather the quarters were what mattered...
Not saying you are wrong, but when this happened to me, it was never considered an invalid claim. In fact, when I went from tier to tier, it kept reappearing.
Well I thank you both for your input and will definitely update with the end result. It's just going to be a hassle if it mucks up getting the last payments that I know I am entitled to.
I just got my a check this past Tuesday so after I claim for the one week today I will give it until a week from this coming Tuesday to get straightened out before I call as that will be two weeks since the last check.
This is not always the case. In one of my many laps, I had to fight with CA about not lowering my benefits. I had not worked since the claim was filed but had wages reported in a new quarter and CA said they would be using those as the quarter had not been used for the filing of a claim. Took me about a month to get them to agree to use the determination that it was less than 25% of my original claim. The darn thing is still sitting there waiting for me too...keep joking that if I can just manage to make it until May of this year, it should go away on its own...not that I am thinking my job is at risk. And in all that time, with all of the million supervisors, people in overpayments, and others, not one of them said that the claim would be invalid because it was from the same employer...in fact, I was told that the employer was not relevant, rather the quarters were what mattered...
Not saying you are wrong, but when this happened to me, it was never considered an invalid claim. In fact, when I went from tier to tier, it kept reappearing.
Which is why I said this:
Quote:
These claims are usually declared invalid a week later.
California is a land unto itself. California, based on numerous reports we've had here, issues a disproportionate share of invalid claims - most of which are, a week or so later, identified as invalid. A few are not. Because of this, on another website, an EDD worker has said if you have not worked it is important you call CA. In your case, thebunny, calling did no good.
The problem in CA arises from the fact it backdates its claims, as you know. If you file on a Friday and have worked Mon-Thurs, CA backdates the claim to the preceding Sunday. Those Mon-Thur earnings are thus considered "new" earnings. So, even though the claimant has not worked since losing their job, CA 'thinks' they have. A California anomaly.
Diego explained this, here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diego1212
Depending on your friends last day of work and the effective date of his claim that was filed in 2011, he may have cleared the LAG and established a valid new claim under sec 1277.
Basically, if his old claim began before his last day of work (i.e. Claim BYB effective the Sunday prior to his LDW, for example, if the claim BYB was effective 09-11-11 and his LDW 09-15-11) and he earned over $1300 in earnings that that last week he worked, he would have taken his 1 week waiting period the 2nd week of the claim since he wouldn't have been payable due to XE earnings that first week. If those earnings that last week exceeded $1300, he then would have the necessary 1 day of work and wages ($900 in one qtr or 1.5 x the highest qtr) within the benefit year of his claim that began 09-11-11 to establish a new 26 week claim under 1277.
Having said that, if the WBA of the new claim is $100 less than what he was previously receiving, he would meet DNCP criteria and should continue to get paid on the extension, even if the new claim is valid. If it isn't less than $100, then he has to stay on the valid new 2012 claim--which is actually to his benefit since extensions end in Dec and if Congress were to extend after than, he would go back to the old extension once the new claim is BX and once those extensions are BX, would then start collecting extensions based on the new claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diego1212
The fact that he may not have worked at all since he started collecting UI is completely different than whether he had the necessary work and wages during the benefit year of his claim to establish a new claim under 1277. Again, it depends on the effective date of his claim, his LDW and his earnings the last week he was employed. What is most relevant is the first week of the benefit year after the claim BYB.
Having said that, it has been my experience that claimants often get confused because they get a notice telling them that they are potentially eligible for a new claim. This notice will come with a DE238 requesting the additional information regarding work/wages that may be needed to actually establish that new claim.
That notice does not in itself mean that a new claim is valid, only that it potentially valid if proof of wages is received. If the claimant cannot provide the proof of earnings the claim will then be invalidated and the claimant sent a notice of invalid claim--confusing because often claimants do not understand that the department has to determine if there is a valid new claim at the end of the benefit year as a matter of policy, they didn't ask for a new claim and then a week after getting a notice that they had this new claim they didn't ask for, are then told that this claim is invalid.
This is a very advantageous glitch for some people. As they are then eligible for a new claim, whereas in any other state they wouldn't be.
For you, thebunny, it was a recurring PITA. Fortunately, you were able to get around it.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 03-03-2013 at 12:55 PM..
Reason: Punctuation edited for clarity.
It was a recurring PITA...well summed up. And I was able to get around it and as of May, it should be totally gone (I am counting the original claim and any and all tiers it could claim I am eligible for from it, as it will have been the full 99 weeks). That said, as far as for OP I hope it all works out.
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.
, who knows. They might let this one fall between the cracks.
