Patrick Hammer Fay, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic DevelopmentPatrick Hammer Fay, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development
cause we must read this state’s laws as they are, not as some argue they should be.” Axelberg, 848 N.W.2d at 212.
DECISION
Because Dornbusch’s use of prescription drugs is not one of the limited issues that the district court may resolve in its judicial review of the commissioner’s license-revocation decision, the district court here correctly rejected Dornbusch’s attempt to invoke the criminal prescription-drug defense.
Affirmed.
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, MN, for respondent.
Considered and decided by CLEARY, Chief Judge; BJORKMAN, Judge; and REYES, Judge.
OPINION
CLEARY, Chief Judge.
Relator Patrick Fay was eligible for unemployment benefits but missed a reemployment assistance services meeting. Respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED)
FACTS
Relator applied for unemployment benefits and established a benefit account with DEED. DEED determined that relator needed reemployment assistance services and mailed relator a notice that indicated he had an appointment. The notice provided in bold and underlined typeface that: “Failure to attend will result in a delay or denial of your unemployment benefits.” Relator missed the scheduled reemployment assistance services meeting. Relator testified that he “put [the meeting] in [his] schedule and ... simply missed it.” Relator also said that the meeting was easy to attend because he lived 500 feet from the building. The ULJ asked relator if he had any other facts to provide regarding the missed meeting and he responded that he did not. Relator attended a subsequent reemployment assistance services meeting.
ISSUES
Did relator have good cause under
ANALYSIS
I.
The ULJ held an evidentiary hearing and determined that relator did not have good cause for missing a required reemployment assistance services meeting and was ineligible for unemployment benefits for the relevant week. Relator argues that he should receive unemployment benefits for the week that he missed a required meeting because he was distracted
A.
The ULJ found that relator did not have good cause for missing the reemployment assistance services meeting under
Good cause for failing to participate is undefined in subdivision 1(7). “When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.”
When a statutory provision is ambiguous, this court can turn to the canons of statutory construction to ascertain a statute‘s meaning. State v. Leathers, 799 N.W.2d 606, 611 (Minn.2011). In this case, the doctrine of in pari materia could be particularly helpful. The doctrine is “a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.” Id. (quotation omitted). Under the doctrine of in pari materia, the definition of good cause from
Similarly,
In addition to the definition of good cause in section 268.105, good cause is defined three other times in chapter 268.1 But these definitions of good cause do not share a common purpose with
Second, in the context of filing continued requests for unemployment benefits,
Finally,
Because
B.
We next have to determine what would keep a reasonable person acting with due diligence from participating in reemployment assistance services. This court has interpreted the definition of good cause under
In Petracek, the court considered whether being in jail was good cause for missing a hearing under section 268.105. 780 N.W.2d at 929. The court held that being in jail, without an attempt to reschedule the hearing or further explanation of the circumstances of the incarceration, is not per se good cause for missing a hearing. Id. at 930. In Skarhus v. Davanni‘s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 345 (Minn.App.2006), the court held that missing a hearing for work was not good cause under section 268.105 when the applicant did not attempt to reschedule the hearing or demonstrate that a request for time off to attend the hearing was denied. Petracek and Skarhus make clear that an applicant must make some showing—like an explanation of the circumstances of the incarceration in the case of Petracek, or DEED refusing to reschedule a hearing in Skarhus—in order to establish good cause for missing a hearing.
At the evidentiary hearing, relator testified that he missed the meeting because he forgot; he did not have any other justification for his absence even when the ULJ asked for further explanation. Relator also testified that he knew about the meeting, put it in his calendar, and lived only 500 feet from the meeting location. Rela-
Relator presented new information for why he missed the meeting in his brief to this court. Relator explained that he was having difficulty keeping up with insurance-related paperwork; he was going through bankruptcy; he was searching for a job; and he was assisting a close family member suffering from an illness. However, relator did not present this information to the ULJ and we therefore may not consider it. See Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., 261 N.W.2d 581, 583 (Minn.1977) (“It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal....“). Additionally, while this court is sympathetic to relator‘s personal and financial struggles, there is no equitable denial or allowance of benefits.
DECISION
Relator is not eligible for unemployment benefits for the week that he missed a required meeting because he did not have a reason that would have prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence from participating at the meeting.
Affirmed.