This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 A14-0386
Kristin Buege, Relator,
vs.
County of Houston, Respondent,
City of Caledonia, Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Filed September 8, 2014 Affirmed Cleary, Chief Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 127628347
Kristin Buege, Caledonia, Minnesota (pro se relator)
County of Houston, Caledonia, Minnesota (respondent)
City of Caledonia, Caledonia, Minnesota (respondent)
Lee B. Nelson, Munazza Humayun, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Department)
Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CLEARY, Chief Judge
Relator appeals an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) decision that she was overpaid
unemployment benefits because she improperly reported her earnings. On certiorari
appeal, relator argues that the ULJ erred by failing to consider that she reported her
earnings in good faith and by miscalculating her earnings. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Kristin Buege works for respondent City of Caledonia as an emergency
medical technician (EMT). She is a casual employee and is paid different hourly rates for
working “on call” and “on standby.” On-call hours involve performance of EMT duties,
whereas standby hours involve being available to take calls. Relator also gets paid to
attend meetings, for clerical work, and for work as a trainer. Along with working for the
city, relator also works for respondent County of Houston as a jailer and dispatcher.
In April 2013, relator established an unemployment-benefit account with a weekly
benefit amount of $393. She made weekly payment requests from April 14, 2013,
through September 28, 2013. The benefits-request form upon which relator entered her
earnings directed that she enter “active duty earnings” and “on call earnings” from
“volunteer Firefighting or volunteer Ambulance Service income” separately. Relator
included the wages she received from the city for on-call hours, meeting attendance, and
training, and the wages she received from the county for working as a jailer and
dispatcher, as “active duty earnings.” The only wages she reported as “on call earnings”
2 were the wages she received from the city for standby hours. Only relator’s “on call
earnings” were deducted from her weekly unemployment benefits.
A determination-of-ineligibility letter was issued to relator on November 12, 2013,
stating that a review of relator’s reported earnings indicated an overpayment of $1,759 in
unemployment benefits. Relator appealed the ineligibility determination, and an
evidentiary hearing was conducted. The city and county submitted timesheets for the
relevant period. At the hearing, relator disagreed with some of the weekly wages that the
city and county reported. Relator submitted her own timesheets and paystubs after the
hearing.
On December 27, 2013, the ULJ issued a decision finding that relator had been
overpaid $998 in unemployment benefits. The ULJ determined that, under Minn. Stat.
§ 268.085, subd. 5(c) (2012), relator improperly reported earnings from her positions
with the county and city as nondeductible earnings. Relator requested reconsideration,
and the ULJ affirmed her decision. This certiorari appeal followed.
DECISION
On certiorari appeal, this court reviews a ULJ’s decision to determine whether it is
“(1) in violation of constitutional provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority or
jurisdiction of the department; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other
error of law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as
submitted; or (6) arbitrary or capricious.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2012). We
view a ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision, giving deference
to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Peterson v. Nw. Airlines Inc., 753 N.W.2d 771,
3 774 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008). Factual findings will not be
disturbed “when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Id. Questions of statutory
construction are reviewed de novo. Houston v. Int’l Data Transfer Corp., 645 N.W.2d
144, 149 (Minn. 2002). But, we “will defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own
statutes unless such interpretation is in conflict with the express purpose of the statute and
the legislature’s intent.” Carlson v. Augsburg Coll., 604 N.W.2d 392, 394 (Minn. App.
2000).
Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 5(a) (2012) states that if an unemployment-insurance
applicant “has earnings . . . with respect to any week, from employment . . . equal to or in
excess of the applicant’s weekly unemployment benefit amount, the applicant is
ineligible for unemployment benefits for that week.” Additionally, for weeks prior to
July 1, 2013, “[i]f the applicant has earnings, with respect to any week, that is less than
the applicant’s weekly unemployment benefit amount, . . . 55 percent of the earnings are
deducted from the weekly unemployment benefit amount.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd.
5(b) (2010). Fifty percent of earnings are deducted for weeks after July 1, 2013. Id.,
subd. 5(b) (2012). However, “[n]o deduction is made from an applicant’s weekly
unemployment benefits amount for earnings . . . from direct service as a volunteer
firefighter or volunteer ambulance service personnel.” Id., subd. 5(c). The exception for
earnings from direct service as a volunteer firefighter or ambulance personnel does not
apply to pay received for “standby” or “on-call” hours. Id. An applicant who receives
unemployment benefits that the applicant was not entitled to must repay the overpaid
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 1(a) (2012).
4 Relator argues that the ULJ erred by failing to consider that she reported her
earnings in good faith and in reliance on instructions given to her by a ULJ who presided
over a prior unemployment-insurance matter in 2010. However, relator does not cite any
authority supporting the applicability of a good-faith defense to repayment of overpaid
unemployment benefits. Section 268.18, subdivision 1(a), mandates repayment of
improperly claimed unemployment benefits without any requirement that the applicant
possessed fraudulent intent. A separate subdivision addresses overpayment due to fraud,
and penalties are assessed for fraudulent conduct. Id., subd. 2(a) (2012). Additionally,
relator did not present any evidence of her communications with the prior ULJ. The ULJ
did not err by failing to find that relator has a good-faith defense preventing recovery of
overpaid unemployment benefits.
Relator asserts that the ULJ erred by miscalculating her earnings. She provides a
summary she prepared, in which she lists the hours she maintains that she worked for the
city and county. Respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development
asserts that the ULJ “correctly concluded that [relator’s] earnings from work as a jailer
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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 A14-0386
Kristin Buege, Relator,
vs.
County of Houston, Respondent,
City of Caledonia, Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Filed September 8, 2014 Affirmed Cleary, Chief Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 127628347
Kristin Buege, Caledonia, Minnesota (pro se relator)
County of Houston, Caledonia, Minnesota (respondent)
City of Caledonia, Caledonia, Minnesota (respondent)
Lee B. Nelson, Munazza Humayun, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Department)
Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CLEARY, Chief Judge
Relator appeals an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) decision that she was overpaid
unemployment benefits because she improperly reported her earnings. On certiorari
appeal, relator argues that the ULJ erred by failing to consider that she reported her
earnings in good faith and by miscalculating her earnings. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Kristin Buege works for respondent City of Caledonia as an emergency
medical technician (EMT). She is a casual employee and is paid different hourly rates for
working “on call” and “on standby.” On-call hours involve performance of EMT duties,
whereas standby hours involve being available to take calls. Relator also gets paid to
attend meetings, for clerical work, and for work as a trainer. Along with working for the
city, relator also works for respondent County of Houston as a jailer and dispatcher.
In April 2013, relator established an unemployment-benefit account with a weekly
benefit amount of $393. She made weekly payment requests from April 14, 2013,
through September 28, 2013. The benefits-request form upon which relator entered her
earnings directed that she enter “active duty earnings” and “on call earnings” from
“volunteer Firefighting or volunteer Ambulance Service income” separately. Relator
included the wages she received from the city for on-call hours, meeting attendance, and
training, and the wages she received from the county for working as a jailer and
dispatcher, as “active duty earnings.” The only wages she reported as “on call earnings”
2 were the wages she received from the city for standby hours. Only relator’s “on call
earnings” were deducted from her weekly unemployment benefits.
A determination-of-ineligibility letter was issued to relator on November 12, 2013,
stating that a review of relator’s reported earnings indicated an overpayment of $1,759 in
unemployment benefits. Relator appealed the ineligibility determination, and an
evidentiary hearing was conducted. The city and county submitted timesheets for the
relevant period. At the hearing, relator disagreed with some of the weekly wages that the
city and county reported. Relator submitted her own timesheets and paystubs after the
hearing.
On December 27, 2013, the ULJ issued a decision finding that relator had been
overpaid $998 in unemployment benefits. The ULJ determined that, under Minn. Stat.
§ 268.085, subd. 5(c) (2012), relator improperly reported earnings from her positions
with the county and city as nondeductible earnings. Relator requested reconsideration,
and the ULJ affirmed her decision. This certiorari appeal followed.
DECISION
On certiorari appeal, this court reviews a ULJ’s decision to determine whether it is
“(1) in violation of constitutional provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority or
jurisdiction of the department; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other
error of law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as
submitted; or (6) arbitrary or capricious.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2012). We
view a ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision, giving deference
to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Peterson v. Nw. Airlines Inc., 753 N.W.2d 771,
3 774 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008). Factual findings will not be
disturbed “when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Id. Questions of statutory
construction are reviewed de novo. Houston v. Int’l Data Transfer Corp., 645 N.W.2d
144, 149 (Minn. 2002). But, we “will defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own
statutes unless such interpretation is in conflict with the express purpose of the statute and
the legislature’s intent.” Carlson v. Augsburg Coll., 604 N.W.2d 392, 394 (Minn. App.
2000).
Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 5(a) (2012) states that if an unemployment-insurance
applicant “has earnings . . . with respect to any week, from employment . . . equal to or in
excess of the applicant’s weekly unemployment benefit amount, the applicant is
ineligible for unemployment benefits for that week.” Additionally, for weeks prior to
July 1, 2013, “[i]f the applicant has earnings, with respect to any week, that is less than
the applicant’s weekly unemployment benefit amount, . . . 55 percent of the earnings are
deducted from the weekly unemployment benefit amount.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd.
5(b) (2010). Fifty percent of earnings are deducted for weeks after July 1, 2013. Id.,
subd. 5(b) (2012). However, “[n]o deduction is made from an applicant’s weekly
unemployment benefits amount for earnings . . . from direct service as a volunteer
firefighter or volunteer ambulance service personnel.” Id., subd. 5(c). The exception for
earnings from direct service as a volunteer firefighter or ambulance personnel does not
apply to pay received for “standby” or “on-call” hours. Id. An applicant who receives
unemployment benefits that the applicant was not entitled to must repay the overpaid
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 1(a) (2012).
4 Relator argues that the ULJ erred by failing to consider that she reported her
earnings in good faith and in reliance on instructions given to her by a ULJ who presided
over a prior unemployment-insurance matter in 2010. However, relator does not cite any
authority supporting the applicability of a good-faith defense to repayment of overpaid
unemployment benefits. Section 268.18, subdivision 1(a), mandates repayment of
improperly claimed unemployment benefits without any requirement that the applicant
possessed fraudulent intent. A separate subdivision addresses overpayment due to fraud,
and penalties are assessed for fraudulent conduct. Id., subd. 2(a) (2012). Additionally,
relator did not present any evidence of her communications with the prior ULJ. The ULJ
did not err by failing to find that relator has a good-faith defense preventing recovery of
overpaid unemployment benefits.
Relator asserts that the ULJ erred by miscalculating her earnings. She provides a
summary she prepared, in which she lists the hours she maintains that she worked for the
city and county. Respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development
asserts that the ULJ “correctly concluded that [relator’s] earnings from work as a jailer
and dispatcher [with the county], as well as her earnings from clerical work, meetings,
and classroom teaching for [the city], were deductible earnings.”
The ULJ determined that all of relator’s earnings from the county as a jailer and
dispatcher were not earnings for direct service as volunteer ambulance service personnel
under section 268.085, subdivision 5(c), and were incorrectly reported as nondeductible
earnings. Relator does not present any legal argument that this is an incorrect
interpretation of the statute. Her positions as dispatcher and jailer do not fall within the
5 plain meaning of “direct service as a volunteer firefighter or volunteer ambulance service
personnel,” and the ULJ did not err in concluding that her earnings from such work were
incorrectly reported.1
With respect to relator’s earnings from the city, the ULJ did not clearly delineate
which earnings should have been reported as deductible standby earnings and which
earnings were nondeductible earnings from direct service as a volunteer firefighter or
volunteer ambulance service personnel. However, based on a comparison of the ULJ’s
findings of the weekly “standby pay” relator received from the city with the timesheets
relator submitted after the hearing, it is apparent that the ULJ found that relator’s
earnings from her time on standby, meeting attendance, clerical work, and time as a
trainer were deductible earnings. Consequently, the ULJ determined that relator’s
earnings from on-call time—the time she spent performing EMT duties—were
nondeductible earnings.
The ULJ did not err by calculating relator’s deductible earnings. Under the plain
language of section 268.085, subdivision 5(c), relator is not performing direct service as a
volunteer firefighter or volunteer ambulance service personnel when she performs
clerical work, attends meetings, works as a trainer, or is on standby. Section 268.085,
subdivision 5(c), clearly differentiates between two categories of work: (1) earnings from
1 The ULJ’s findings reflect that the ULJ found relator’s testimony credible as to the small discrepancies between the information the county submitted for her earnings and her own records. Although relator takes issue with the accuracy of some of the documents in the record, it does not appear that the ULJ relied on any of these documents, but instead relied on the timesheets and paystubs she provided and her testimony.
6 direct service as a firefighter or ambulance service personnel, and (2) time spent on
standby as a firefighter or ambulance service personnel. Relator’s earnings from work
performed as part of her EMT duties clearly falls within the first category, and these
earnings were not deductible from her unemployment benefits. The rest of relator’s
earnings fall within the second category, and were deductible from her unemployment
benefits. Because the ULJ correctly determined which of relator’s earnings were
deductible, the ULJ did not err by concluding that relator incorrectly reported her
earnings, resulting in an overpayment of unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.