A Question of Time

Skidmore v. Dept. of Labor, 2017 VT 65

By Eric Fanning

Appellant Margaret Skidmore, otherwise known by SCOV here as “Claimant,” was injured on the job in April 2013, and hasn’t had full-time work since then.  She comes before SCOV pro se (without a lawyer) to appeal the decision of the Department of Labor’s Unemployment Insurance and Wage Division denying her continued weekly unemployment benefits.

For the sake of consistency- I’ll continue to call Skidmore “Claimant.”  So, anyway, Claimant was injured and left work in April 2013 and started receiving workers comp.  She received temporary total disability wage replacement benefits until March 20, 2015.  Remember that date, because it becomes important later.

On May 18, 2015, she called the Unemployment Division of the Department of Labor to ask about unemployment benefits.  Unbeknownst to her, the Unemployment Division, which oversees unemployment benefits, opened a claim after taking down her Social Security number and other relevant information.

On February 2, 2016, Claimant called the Unemployment Division back to look into benefits in anticipation of her worker’s comp. benefits ending.  She was found eligible for $419.00/week for a year from the date she opened her claim.  Here’s the kicker, the Unemployment Division started claimant’s benefit year on May 18, 2015, when she first called, instead of her next call in February of 2016, so her benefit year ended just a few months later in May.  All in all- she got $5447 from February of 2016 until May 14, 2016.

When those benefits ran out, she filed again to receive benefits through May 2017 (the Department of Labor calls this a “transitional claim”), and she was denied.  She lost her administrative appeals, and now claimant has to make her case to SCOV.

Basically her position is, “the Unemployment Division started my benefit period on May 18, 2015, but they shouldn’t have, because that was just an informational call; they should have started my benefit period when I called for realz on February 2.”

As an initial matter, Skidmore has a tough hill to climb because SCOV’s review of the Department of Labor’s decisions are highly deferential; i.e. SCOV will affirm the Department’s factual findings unless they are “clearly erroneous” and its conclusions if they are “reasonably supported by the findings.”  Think opposite of de novo.  This is the hardest standard to overcome for an appellant such as Ms. Skidmore.  Basically, she only prevails if SCOV concludes that the Unemployment Division and Employment Security Board’s findings weren’t based in reality at all.  So you can probably see how this ends.

The odd thing about this case is that even if she could prevail on appeal, she wouldn’t really “win.”  Confused?  Ok, I’ll explain.

There are four monetary methods used for calculating monetary eligibility for benefits, which vary by how they calculate a claimant’s base period, or “the time period from which a claimant’s weekly entitlement is measured.”  The statute caters to those with wonkish sensibilities, so I don’t want to waste time going into the details here. Plus, there’s no dispute between the parties that Claimant Skidmore was ineligible for benefits under the first three monetary methods; so it comes down to the fourth.  The fourth states that an otherwise eligible individual who doesn’t qualify under methods one-three could qualify if they were separated from employment due to accident or injury, if a claim is filed within six months following the termination of worker’s compensation benefits.

The timeline is not in dispute here, so SCOV doesn’t have any trouble at all going along with the Department on this one.  Claimant’s temporary total disability benefits through worker’s comp. ended on March 20, 2015, so in order to qualify for unemployment, she would have had to file a claim by September of 2015.  Remember that claimant’s whole argument is that her claim should have began on February 2, so even if she were granted that, she would not have been eligible at all, and would’ve gotten nothing.

Since none of the facts are in dispute, SCOV sides with the Department of Labor and affirms.  However, instead of $0, claimant Skidmore ended up getting $5447, so really even though she lost her case, she kind of won.  And even though SCOV sides with the Department of Labor on this one, they believe the process for filing for unemployment is too messy, and orders the Department to provide better guidance for claimants on how to maximize benefits and to alert claimants that by calling the Unemployment Division, they could be initiating a benefit year.