This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-0650
Ge Yang,
Relator,
vs.
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed December 29, 2014
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 32048138-2
Ge Yang, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RODENBERG, Judge
Relator challenges two unemployment law judge (ULJ) decisions, one dismissing
his appeal from an ineligibility determination as untimely, and the other concluding that
his overpayment debt is properly subject to revenue recapture under the Minnesota
Revenue Recapture Act. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Ge Yang lost his job on January 19, 2013 due to a “company slow down”
and received two months of severance pay. In March 2013, he applied for unemployment
benefits, while continuing to look for work. Respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) granted relator $393 per week in
unemployment benefits.
Relator later applied for social security disability benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423.
When DEED learned of this application, it requested information from relator and his
doctor. Both relator and his doctor indicated that relator was disabled and unable to work
and had been since January 18, 2013. Based on this information, a DEED administrative
clerk issued relator a determination of ineligibility on November 1, 2013 and notified
relator that he had been overpaid $10,568 in unemployment benefits. The determination
of ineligibility letter also informed relator that, if he disagreed with the ineligibility
determination, he would need to appeal by November 21, 2013 or 20 days after the
determination was sent to him. Relator failed to appeal within the 20-day timeframe.
On December 3, 2013, DEED sent relator a notice of revenue recapture, informing
relator of the intention to recapture the overpayment of benefits resulting from the
determination of his ineligibility for unemployment benefits. Relator wrote a letter dated
December 19, 2013 to DEED, stating that he had “been calling” DEED “many times” and
could not reach anyone. He implored DEED to call him. DEED construed his letter as
an appeal of both the ineligibility determination of November 1, 2013 and the notice of
revenue recapture of December 3, 2013.
2
A ULJ dismissed relator’s appeal of the ineligibility determination as untimely.
Relator sought reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed the order of dismissal.
A second ULJ held a telephone hearing on the revenue recapture issue, in which
relator participated with the assistance of an interpreter. During the hearing, relator
explained that he did not understand why he had to repay the money and stated that “[he]
never said [he] was going to pay” the overpayment debt. The ULJ advised relator that
the issue at the hearing was whether “the Department followed the law in referring your
claim to the Department of Revenue” for the purpose of revenue recapture. Relator
testified that he did not have a signed agreement with DEED to repay the overpayment
amount.
On January 22, 2014, this second ULJ found that relator “did not have a written
agreement . . . that precluded the referral of the overpayment to the Department of
Revenue,” and that “[t]he procedures of the Revenue Recapture Act have been complied
with.” Therefore, the ULJ concluded, “[t]he debt of [relator] . . . is properly recoverable
through the Revenue Recapture Act.” Relator requested reconsideration. The ULJ
affirmed the previous decision. This certiorari appeal followed.
DECISION
DEED argues that relator’s petition for certiorari did not challenge the first ULJ’s
decision concerning the timeliness of the appeal of the determination of ineligibility. It is
true that relator attached to his petition only the decision by the second ULJ affirming the
revenue recapture decision. In both his petition for a writ of certiori and his statement of
the case, relator raised challenges to the November 1, 2013 ineligibility determination
3
and in his brief argues that we should consider the appeal despite its untimeliness. We
will construe relator’s petition broadly and address both whether his appeal of the
ineligibility determination was timely and whether the overpayment, if any, is
recoverable by way of revenue recapture. See Kelly v. Kelly, 371 N.W.2d 193, 195
(Minn. 1985) (holding that notices of appeal are to be liberally construed in favor of their
sufficiency and not insufficient due to defects that could not have been misleading).
“A determination of eligibility or ineligibility is final unless an appeal is filed . . .
within 20 calendar days after sending.” Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f). “An untimely
appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck
Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d 25, 29 (Minn. App. 2012). Therefore, if DEED’s decision is
not timely appealed, it becomes final 20 days after being sent to the applicant.
As to the timeliness issue, relator argues that he is not familiar with the law and
that it is difficult for him to understand English. Consequently he must look for someone
to help him when he receives mail, which made his response to DEED late. “[S]tatutes
designating the time for appeal from decisions of all levels of the Department should be
strictly construed, regardless of mitigating circumstances.” King v. Univ. of Minn., 387
N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn. App. 1986). It is uncontested that DEED originally notified
relator of the ineligibility determination on November 1, 2013. It is also uncontested that
relator’s first written communication with DEED was not until December 19, 2013.
Because this communication was beyond the 20-day appeal period, relator’s attempted
appeal of the ineligibility determination was untimely, and the ULJ’s decision affirming
the dismissal of relator’s appeal was correct. The merits of the ineligibility determination
4
are outside our scope of review, the ULJ had no jurisdiction to address the merits because
the appeal was dismissed as untimely, and we cannot address them either.
“A determination or amended determination that holds an applicant ineligible for
unemployment benefits for periods an applicant has been paid benefits is considered an
overpayment of those unemployment benefits.” Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 6 (2012).
An applicant who “has received any unemployment benefits that the applicant was held
not entitled to, must promptly repay the unemployment benefits to the trust fund.” Minn.
Stat. § 268.18, subd. 1(a) (2012). Here, relator was determined to have been overpaid by
$10,568 as a result of an ineligibility determination dated November 1, 2013. That
decision became final on November 21, 2013, as discussed above. Relator therefore has
an overpayment debt of $10,568.
The remaining issue is whether relator’s overpayment debt is subject to revenue
recapture. The Minnesota Revenue Recapture Act permits a state agency to satisfy a debt
owed to the agency through the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Minn. Stat.
§§ 270A.01–.12 (2012). The act defines “debt” as a “legal obligation of a natural person
to pay a fixed and certain amount of money, which equals or exceeds $25 and which is
due and payable to a claimant agency.” Minn. Stat. § 270A.03, subd. 5(a). The act
requires that the agency send a written notice to the debtor that “assert[s] the right of the
claimant agency to the [debtor’s] refund or any part thereof” and notifies the debtor of the
right to request a hearing to contest the validity of the claim. Minn. Stat. § 270A.08,
subds. 1(a), 2(b).
5
For purposes of revenue recapture, the overpaid unemployment benefits that
DEED paid to relator are a “debt.” Relator received a written notice of revenue recapture
mailed by DEED on December 3, 2013. Relator timely requested a hearing under the
Minnesota Revenue Recapture Act and was afforded a telephone hearing before a ULJ.
The ULJ determined that DEED had properly sought recapture under the Minnesota
Revenue Recapture Act. There was no written agreement obligating relator to repay
DEED by other means. The record supports the ULJ’s determination that the amount of
overpaid unemployment benefits received by relator was subject to revenue recapture.
The record admits of no conclusion other than that application of the Minnesota Revenue
Recapture Act was appropriate in this case.
Affirmed.
6