Department of Employment and Economic Development File Nos. 29743269-3, 29702529-3, 29743410-3, 30016892-2
Nasheed Marzuq, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Lee B. Nelson, Colleen Timmer, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.
In these consolidated appeals, relator argues that the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) erred by (1) dismissing one of his appeals as untimely, and (2) determining that his overpayment debt was recoverable under the Revenue Recapture Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 270A.01-.12 (2012). We affirm.
In April 2011, relator Nasheed Marzuq applied for, and began receiving, unemployment benefits. Marzuq also applied for social security disability benefits and, in April 2012, the Social Security Administration (SSA) notified Marzuq that he is entitled to benefits and that he would begin receiving a monthly payment of $901. SSA further determined that Marzuq's entitlement to benefits began in September 2011, and notified him that he would be issued a payment of $6, 194 for the benefits he was entitled to receive from September 2011 through March 2012. On May 1, 2012, Marzuq notified respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) that he was approved for social security disability benefits.
On May 14, DEED issued three determinations of ineligibility to Marzuq, each addressing a different time period. The determinations informed Marzuq that, under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 4 (2012), his unemployment benefits were reduced by 50% of his social security disability benefits. Because Marzuq received a lump-sum social security disability benefits payment for September 2011 through March 2012, the determinations also notified Marzuq that he was overpaid a total of $3, 416 in unemployment benefits during that time period. Each determination included a section titled "Right of Appeal, " which stated that the "determination will become final unless an appeal is filed by Monday, June 4, 2012."
In May and June, DEED applied toward the overpayment two separate credits from unemployment benefits that were due to Marzuq. On June 11, DEED referred Marzuq's remaining debt of $2, 840 to the Minnesota Department of Revenue for collection under the Revenue Recapture Act. The following day, DEED notified Marzuq that it had filed a claim against his state tax refund for $2, 840 under the Revenue Recapture Act and that he could request a hearing to address the issue of whether the claim was filed according to law. On June 21, Marzuq requested a hearing.
Marzuq appealed the ineligibility determinations on July 10. The next day, a ULJ dismissed Marzuq's appeal as untimely. Marzuq requested reconsideration, arguing that he was not overpaid because he did not work or receive money from any source other than through unemployment benefits during the time period in question.
In August, a ULJ held an evidentiary hearing regarding Marzuq's challenge to DEED's claim against his state tax refund under the Revenue Recapture Act. At the hearing, Marzuq argued that he was not overpaid because he followed the law and met the requirements to receive both unemployment benefits and social security disability benefits. Following the hearing, the ULJ issued an order finding that because DEED complied with the procedures of the Revenue Recapture Act, Marzuq's debt is properly recoverable under that law. The ULJ found that Marzuq filed the appeal in order to dispute the amount of overpayment of unemployment benefits, but that the ULJ has no jurisdiction to consider that argument because a hearing on a notice of revenue recapture is limited to the issue of whether the debt is collectable under the Revenue Recapture Act. Marzuq requested reconsideration of the ULJ's decision.
In September, the ULJ affirmed the dismissal of Marzuq's appeal of the ineligibility determinations, finding that the determinations were final because a timely appeal was not filed and, as a result, the ULJ had no authority to address the merits of the case. Shortly afterward, the ULJ affirmed its decision that ...