Affirmed: My unemployment appeal is “affirmed.” What does that mean?

by: Anonymous

If I got approved for benefits at first but then my employer appealed the decision and it got reversed and I lost benefits

But then I appealed and it said Affirmed previous ruling does that mean I don’t get benefits?

Yup, that’s what it sounds like to me, the last ruling being the tribunal hearing decision, reversing stands.

I read recently that hearing decisions appealed to a board of review don’t work out though, an approximated 98 percent of the time.

That’s truly some pathetic odds to face, if you can’t repay benefits already received and spent.

It’s also why I am adamant, it’s better to be represented at a lower level hearing, because a claimant actually has an expert in UI law who knows how to prepare and win lower level tribunal hearings and the better way that knows in case a board appeal is needed, you also need something on the record of the lower level appeal hearing to validate a written argument to the board of review, that points to whatever helps a board to understand what went wrong at a tribunal hearing, that make the aggrieved party’s case worthy of a remand back down to the lower level, to set the record straight, or on rarer occasion, to reverse the last ruling, instead of affirm it.

Chris

by: Anonymous

Hi, so I filed unemployment in Texas and was denied the first time. I appealed it and on the my unemployment page it has previous ruling reversed. Now I have my letter and in the decision section it states the same thing, but in the paragraph under the decision is says the chargeback determination is affirmed. I’m lost, will I receive benefits or not.

Hi,

So, given I’m clueless about any of the issues listed on the tribunal hearing notice, except that I know when there is a separation issue (quit, or discharge) there is often an issue regarding whether the employer should be charged for benefits, all I can tell you about the chargeback issue you mentioned, is it sounds to me as if the hearing decision said it should remain the same as whatever the claim determination determined previously.

Because that’s what affirm means, not reversed.

Chris

by: Anonymous

When you answered, “But the section of unemployment law used by the deputy to support their determination of benefits, is being modified to cite a different, or even an additional section of law in support of the findings of the initial determination” what does that mean? That they are using something other than the initial “misconduct”? Also what “good cause” do employers give for their absence at the ALJ appeal hearing they requested? Do they give new evidence? What sort of new evidence? Why didn’t they use it before?
Thanks

Hi Curious,

Good to be that way and lots of questions could be answered by searching for a state’s specific rules for administrative law procedure.

1. “But the section of unemployment law used by the deputy to support their determination of benefits, is being modified to cite a different, or even an additional section of law in support of the findings of the initial determination”.

An example might be an initial determination citing a voluntary quit for a personal reason (health) found to be without good cause because the claimant did not exhaust efforts to preserve their job, but at the hearing, some information came forward that disclosed the claimant was medically not able to work at all when they left work without making efforts to preserve their job first (such as accepting an offer to go out on FMLA leave before leaving work) now relates to an additional conditional eligibility requirement to collect to be able and available to look for and accept suitable work if allowed to collect.

Another example might be an initial determination finding a person quit without good cause attributable to the employer. However, during the course of the tribunal hearing it comes out through testimony and a piece of evidence called a resignation letter, which was not made available at the initial level, actually proves the voluntary quit was forced, or done in lieu of being terminated. As all employees should know before applying for benefits, or at least before attending a tribunal hearing, a quit in lieu of being fired, is supposed to be initially adjudicated as a discharge for misconduct.

Once something likes this becomes clear during the hearing, the hearing officer would likely be given to start poking around for evidence the quit was forced by an actual case of misconduct, and if found would naturally affirm the initial determination, but modify the section of law used for the denial. In addition, this is necessary because in many states, the disqualification for a voluntary quit is not the same as it is for a discharge for misconduct, so there’s another modification to properly apply a different section of UI law.

2. What is good cause for employer’s non-appearing at hearings? That’s a good question, but since you’re asking me, someone that used to write more than one postponement request a day, only to be denied the postponement. It was the fact the request was made and became part of the record, just to hang an appeal to the board of review to request a reopening at the tribunal level, so a hearing rep could come up with a plan/argument to explain sufficiently why there was good cause for not appearing.

What I can tell you is although the cause for the employer was often just the press of conducting their business, I knew that to not be a very good reason to request a ppmt., so I went generic and just said the employer’s witness with firsthand, or direct knowledge of separation was not available to testify, when I wasn’t lucky enough to of received the notice of hearing late from the state and provide the details which could be proven later, down the road.

3. Do they give new evidence? What sort of new evidence? Why didn’t they use it before?

I’ll answer the last question with known reasons to the best of my ability.

Logistics can be a problem for employers when they rely on a third party UI claim mgmt. administrator.

Some direct witnesses (bosses, managers and supervisors) think a TPA doesn’t need any additional cooperation from the employing unit to manage and win hearings in the effort to reduce a company’s UI tax burden.

And the last reason I think employer’s don’t use evidence before, is they are indifferent to the damage they can cause if someone is initially allowed to collect, who shouldn’t.

I personally have no problem telling someone when I think they will likely be denied in hopes it might prevent them from facing an overpayment, but when it is an employer’s indifference to simply rely on the appeal process to correct the problem cause by what came across as being disorganized, or just plain old laziness to cause inefficiency as being the cause for an overpayment, I object!!

Chris

by: Anonymous

If you decision says the determination of the deputy is affirmed but modified , what does that mean ?

Dear Confused,

It usually means the hearing officer has confirmed the correctness of the deputy’s finding, generally with regard to a person’s eligibility to receive, or be denied benefits. But the section of unemployment law used by the deputy to support their determination of benefits, is being modified to cite a different, or even an additional section of law in support of the findings of the initial determination.

Chris

by: Anonymous

What does it mean when it says that the Unemployment Review Commission’s decision must be vacated for further action?

Hi,
It just means the commission’s decision is being set aside, In what context and for what reason and type of further action — I have no idea.

But usually, it’s happens after a written appeal argument is sent to a board of review citing supporting reasons found in precedents about laws or procedures that show someone’s rights to due process have been stepped on.

A board of review has options to how a matter, or decision on appeal should also proceed.

A board may dismiss an appeal.

They can reverse a hearing decision.

They can remand the case back to the lower level appeal authority to resolve issues on appeal to the board without vacating a hearing decision.

Or, they can remand and vacate the last lower level appeal hearing decision, basically making it trash and ordering things begin over, or de novo.

by: Sarah

Chris is adding her comments in italics.

I filed unemployment after I lost my job to no child care while I worked.

I was approved and started receiving benefits. (This is a favorable initial non-monetary CLAIM determination)

My employer appealed and a hearing was scheduled.

(It’s what they do Sarah and if you’re me, feel safer to assume they will appeal, than just sorry you didn’t).

I missed the hearing due to good causes.

(A board of review might make a good cause ruling on an appeal to reopen a case after a non-appearance, or they might just send the case back down to the tribunal for another hearing to address the issue of non-appearance, and usually, but not always, then the separation issue if good cause is established at the beginning of the hearing.

However when most board do send a case back down to the lower level tribunal there is usually an order it be sent with the last hearing decision still in place, or they vacate the first hearing decision, to make it virtually as if it never happened. Why I’m having a hard time identifying the “previous ruling”.

So I lost the first hearing and my benefits so it stated we reversed previous ruling.

(Makes sense to me that without you at the hearing to meet a burden of quitting, they would likely reverse the initial claim determination)

So therefore I appealed and the second hearing was opened up due to good causes for why I missed first hearing.

(good cause for your non-appearance I’m assuming and not the voluntary quit)

After the second hearing it states we affirmed the previous ruling.

(Not to split to many hairs here, but did it say we affirm, or affirmed?)

So which ruling do they affirmed?? The first ruling when I applied nor second ruling we they reversed the previous ruling? Confused

Here’s the thing Sarah, I’m confused too, but only because I would expect most hearing decisions to say more than “the previous ruling is affirmed, or we affirm the previous ruling because most also give us some sort of chronological timeline for what has happened up until the point a new, or amended. modified decision is being made on another appeal to replace the last, it just shouldn’t be this hard for you to know what the last ruling about your benefits, not your non-appearance issue.

Now, if you want to email me and review all the docs you’ve sent and received from the state, from the time you were initially allowed, I would just line them all up in chronological order and figure out if affirmed means you get your benefits back, or remain denied.

Chris

by: Crystal

When you appealed, after missing the first hearing, which sounds like it should of been on an employer’s appeal, do you know if the next hearing was an “additional” hearing, possibly to address your non-appearance, while the last hearing decision denying benefits was left intact, or did the board, or whoever you appealed to in Indiana, vacate that decision and remand on your appeal, the whole matter of non-appearance and separation, matter back down to the tribunal for a de novo (new) hearing?

Maybe this, about the Indiana UI appeal process, will help.

by: Anonymous

I was granted unemployment till my employer appealed.

I was scheduled a hearing but missed for good reason.

I was denied benefits till I had my second hearing.

It stated on first application approved. Employer appealed and I lost benefits.

I appealed and now it says affirmed the previous ruling. So does it mean the first ruling or second ruling?

by: Anonymous

k We affirmed the previous ruling. I just did a appeal for my unemployment does this mean I got it or I didn’t

If you were the party that appealed the previous ruling, my guess would be that you didn’t win, because affirm means, whomever agreed, that the previous was correct shouldn’t be reversed.

Chris

by: Chris

What are you asking?

What does this mean?

Unemployment benefits are initially allowed, or denied with the second claim determination, referred to as the “non-monetary”.

When an employer appeals this determination to a hearing, I can assume the unemployed person was allowed to receive benefits.

As opposed to what you wrote that leads me to a different conclusion that benefits in your case were not “affirmed”.

So, let me break the appeal process down to some fundamentals.

No matter who appeals, both the employer and the claimant are sent a notice of hearing so both know when they are expected to appear (whether in person, or by phone) to offer evidence and testimony relevant to why the initial determination should be affirmed by a lower level appeal hearing officer, or reversed from how benefits stood when the initial non-monetary determination was issued.

So basically, what you wrote “My unemployment was affirmed so I appealed it” makes zero sense to me.

Therefore it’s not possible to answer “what does this mean?” However, I might assume that since you’re hung up on the word affirmed, that you missed the lower level hearing and the the tribunal’s hearing decision reversed on an employer’s appeal and you then appealed that hearing notice to a board of review, who affirmed again, you should be denied and likely, repay any unemployment benefits you received initially, thanks to an erroneous non-monetary claim determination.

Now, the only question is whether you can tell me why my assumption about your question, is hot, cold, or somewhere in between.

Chris

by: Anonymous

My unemployment was affirmed so I appealed it and the board of review affirmed it again does that mean my benefits was denied again?

by: Chris

What do you mean they didn’t notify you of the new hearing? How, why weren’t you notified?

Have you appealed the any new unfavorable hearing decision based on the fact you weren’t properly notified of the new hearing? This is basically what the employer did to get the decision that allowed benefits vacated and remanded back down for a new (de novo) first level hearing.

The employer no showed. Excuse me, but big deal if they know how to get a case reopened.

They must have had a good reason for the non-appearance which would of been an issue listed on most “new” hearing notices.

The board of review must have issued an order that likely vacated the first hearing decision and remanded the matter (your case) back down for a brand new first level hearing as if the first one never took place.

Chris

by: Anonymous

I won my case and then started to receive benefits and then they took it away from me, apparently the employer filed an appeal, I don’t understand why after all they were a no show at the first hearing.

Anyway they scheduled another hearing, but didn’t notify me and the judge remanded the decision and took away my benefits. they I filed an appeal to the higher authority and they reviewed it and remanded the decision. so what does that mean?

by: Anonymous

I was told that it was because I didn’t attend the first hearing. The second hearing, they were not present but the judge said it was ok. That’s not fair because there should have been interaction. I tried to explain, was berated by the judge n told to say yes or no without anything else. Yes or no did not always apply

What was the issue on the hearing notice for the second hearing, Non Appearance?

Personally, I am of the mind if you really want things to be fair, you have a responsibility to meet fairness half way and pay attention to what will be discussed at the hearing and prepare for it.

by: Anonymous

What does it mean when the hearing decision is reversed?

Well, it’s fairly self explanatory, a reversal, means a higher authority at the unemployment department has decided a lower authority.. was wrong.

So the higher authority is correcting the error or mistake by reversing.