Unemployment benefits; Overpayment; Waiver of repayment obligation; MCL 421.62(a); Unemployment Insurance Appeals Commission (UIAC); Department of Labor & Economic Opportunity/Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA); Administrative law judge (ALJ)

The court vacated the circuit court’s order and instructed it to vacate the UIAC’s decision as to repayment of unemployment benefits and remanded “to the UIAC to make factual findings consistent with the requirements of MCL 421.62(a).” The UIA argued the circuit court erred by waiving claimant’s obligation for repayment. The court agreed in part and disagreed in part. It found that in “rendering its decision, the UIAC conflated the language of MCL 421.62(a)(iii), and, in so doing, failed to demonstrate its decision was authorized by law.” The court determined that the UIAC’s reasoning was “incorrect for multiple reasons. First, MCL 421.62(a)(iii) does not ‘permit’ waiver of restitution if repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience. The statute provides repayment ‘shall’ be waived if repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience. Thus, waiver is mandatory in such circumstances.” Secondly, the UIAC’s decision appeared “to disagree with the ALJ by implying that the ALJ’s own reasoning is contradictory. But, the fact that claimant did not report his benefits is irrelevant when considered in light of whether the UIA committed an administrative error in paying claimant benefits after being informed of his retirement status. The UIAC’s decision does not explain how its continued payment of benefits was or was not the result of an administrative error. Finally, and most notably, the UIAC misinterpreted the statute by reasoning that claimant’s failure to disclose his pension benefits did not comport with equity and good conscience. It is not claimant who must comport with equity and good conscience under MCL 421.62(a)(iii), it is the UIA. Again, the UIA must waive repayment if the payments were made as the result of an administrative error and repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience. The UIAC failed to make any findings regarding the UIA’s alleged administrative error. It also failed to make any findings as to whether claimant’s actions rose to the level of ‘an intentional false statement, misrepresentation, or concealment of material information,’ necessary to preclude waiver under MCL 421.62(a). All in all, the UIAC’s decision was not authorized by law, because it failed to make any factual findings to support whether waiver was or was not required under MCL 421.62(a)(iii).”