Cite as: Woods v Associated Community Services, Unpublished Opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, Issued October 30, 2012 (Docket No. 12-007632-AE).
HOLDING: The Circuit Court upheld the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission’s (MCAC) decision that there was insufficient evidence to find claimant not ineligible for unemployment benefits for the period between August 25 and September 30, 2010, and that there was sufficient evidence to find her eligible for benefits from September 30, 2010 to August 16, 2011.
FACTS: Claimant worked with Employer until she was confronted about her “incoherent phone behavior” which was the result of a medication that she was taking that made her drowsy. When the employer asked claimant for proof from her doctor of the medication, the doctor refused, citing privacy laws, and the claimant was only able to provide proof from her pharmacist. During the following week, claimant attempted to return to work multiple times, but was sent home.
Claimant applied for unemployment benefits, but the UIA denied her claim because the Employer told UIA that claimant had been on a leave of absence. The ALJ overturned this determination, as the ALJ found that claimant had neither requested a leave nor had her doctor suggested such a leave of absence. Thus, the ALJ found that she had not been permitted to perform her job duties on August 25, 2010, but had only been terminated from her employment as of September 30, 2010. Accordingly, the ALJ found that she had been eligible for benefits as of August 25, 2010. Further, the ALJ found that claimant had established good cause for her failure to timely file a request for redetermination of her eligibility. The MCAC confirmed the ALJ finding that claimant had not been ineligible for benefits during the period between August 25 and September 30, but issued an unclear ruling stating that Claimant was subject to the offset provision in Section 48(1).
DECISION: The Circuit Court affirmed the MCAC decision. Claimant is entitled to unemployment benefits for the period from September 30, 2010 and August 16, 2011, but is subject to the loss of remuneration provision between August 25, 2010 and September 30, 2010.
RATIONALE: Here, the Circuit Court merely took a supervisory role to review the MCAC decision. Section 48(1) provides that if remuneration is lost due to something other than the Employer’s failure to furnish full-time work, the person is not unemployed. The MCAC found Claimant to be on a leave of absence between August 25 and September 30, 2010, and thus subject to the offset provision, and the Circuit Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support this decision.