UI Court decision summary -- Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development v. LIRC, Anita Shaw, and The Dr. Howard Fuller Education Foundation, Inc. (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Co., April 9, 2015) - BR 330 – Concealment of material facts by claimant; forfeiture for. BR 330 – PC 714.11 – UW 900 - No concealment of work and wages. The commission concluded that the evidence in the record was insufficient to support a finding that the employee worked and earned wages in a given week, so it was insufficient to support a finding that she concealed work or wages. BR 330 – PC 714.01- No concealment of work and wages. The commission credited the EE's testimony that she was confused by the new wording of a question on the weekly claim form, because, while she had worked, she had not received and would not receive sick pay, bonus pay, or commission. The commission will not find intentional concealment based on a claimant's answer to a compound question. It was most reasonable to infer, based on the evidence in the record, that, had the EE not misunderstood the department's new compound question concerning work, that the EE would have continued to report her work and wages as she had been doing for several years prior to the change. Includes discussion of “administrative notice.”

Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance

Subject: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, Anita Shaw, and The Dr. Howard Fuller Education Foundation, Inc., Case No. 14-CV-5910 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Milwaukee Cnty. Apr. 9, 2015).

Digest Codes: BR 330 – Concealment of material facts by claimant; forfeiture for

The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) brought a lawsuit against LIRC challenging LIRC's findings of no concealment by the claimant, Anita Shaw. LIRC found that Ms. Shaw made an honest mistake and did not intend to conceal information from the department.

The department appealed the commission's decision to circuit court.

Held: Affirmed.

The circuit court concluded that LIRC's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(11) is entitled to great weight deference. It agreed with LIRC that DWD failed to prove that the claimant, Anita Shaw, intended to conceal information when claiming benefits. The circuit court held that Ms. Shaw's testimony constituted credible and substantial evidence to support LIRC's factual conclusion. It further held that LIRC reasonably concluded that an “honest mistake” does not constitute concealment within the meaning of the statute.

The department did not appeal the circuit court's decision to the court of appeals.

Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.

[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]