Christine Jacobson, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1842

Christine Jacobson,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment & Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed July 17, 2017
Affirmed
Toussaint, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 34896821-3

Christine Jacobson, Evansville, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Lee B. Nelson, Keri Phillips, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St.
Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Toussaint,
Judge.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Judge
On certiorari appeal from a decision by the unemployment law judge (ULJ) ,
affirming respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development’s (department) assessment of an administrative penalty under Minn. Stat.
§ 268.182, subd. 2(a) (2016), for making a false statement in order to obtain unemployment
benefits, relator Christine Jacobson argues that the decision is unsupported by substantial
evidence. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s decision, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
This court may reverse the decision of a ULJ “if the substantial rights of the
petitioner may have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or
decision are . . . unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as
submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2016). The ULJ’s factual findings are
reviewed in the light most favorable to the decision , and we defer to the ULJ’s credibility
determinations. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).
Minn. Stat. § 268.182, subd. 2(a), provides:
Any applicant who knowingly makes a false statement
or representation, who knowingly fails to disclose a material
fact, or who makes a false statement or representation without
a good faith belief as to the correc tness of the statement or
representation, in order to obtain or in an attempt to obtain
unemployment benefits may be assessed . . . an administrative
penalty of being ineligible for unemployment benefits for 13
to 104 weeks.

3
Whether an applicant knowingly made false statements under this subdivision is a question
of fact. See Cash v. Comm’r of Econ. Sec. , 352 N.W.2d 535, 537 (Minn. App. 1984)
(stating that this court may not s ubstitute its judgment for the c ommissioner’s under
predecessor statute).
Following a de novo hearing on August 10, 2016, the ULJ determined that relator was
ineligible for unemployment benefits for the week beginning July 3, 2016, because she was
not available for suitable employment benefits for that week. Shortly thereafter, the
department imposed an administrative penalty under Minn. Stat. § 268.182, subd. 2(a),
consisting of a 13-week period of ineligibility for making a false statement in order to obtain
unemployment benefits. Specifically, the department concluded that after the July 13, 2016
initial determination that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits for the week
beginning July 3, 2016, due to her absence from her labor market area for personal reasons,
relator “changed her mailing address on file with the department from an address in
Minnetonka, Minnesota to an address in Evansville, Minnesota.” The department also
determined that relator “lied” under oath at the August 10 hearing “in an attempt to obtain
unemployment benefits” by stating that “she was not out of town in the week beginning July
3, 2016, as she had moved to Evansville (sic), Minnesota in late June 2016.” Relator appealed
the imposition of the administrative penalty, and following a hearing on September 12, 2016,
the ULJ affirmed the determination that relator “knowingly made false statements in an
attempt to receive unemployment benefits.” Thus, the ULJ concluded that the “imposition of
administrative penalties was correct.”

4
Relator challenges the ULJ’s decision affirming the imposition of an administrative
penalty under section 268.182, subdivision 2(a), arguing that the decision is unsupported by
substantial evidence. She asserts that after being laid off from her place of employment,
she moved to Evansville on June 26, 2016, where she was available and looking for work.
Relator also appears to assert that she used her Minnetonka address when she established
her unemployment account because she had not changed her address to Evansville with the
United States Postal Service. According to relator, when she changed her address with the
postal service to Evansville, she also changed her mailing address on file with th e
department. Thus, relator contends that the ULJ erroneously concluded that she provided
false statements at the hearings in order to obtain unemployment benefits.
We disagree. The record reflects that at the September 12 hearing, relator testified
that she first moved to Evansville the “last week of June,” but she listed Minnetonka as her
address because she “wasn’t looking over the information online right.” Relator testified that
she “made a mistake” and that she corrected her mistake on July 18, 2016, when she “started
changing all [her] addresses in the cities the first two weeks in July, permanently.” But the
ULJ specifically found relator’s testimony to be not credible, and it is well settled that we
defer to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 344.
The record reflects that when relator established her unemployment benefits account
with the department, she listed a Minnetonka address. The record also reflects that in
requesting benefits for the week beginning July 3, 2016, relator stated that she was
unavailable for work that week because she was in Evansville “helping family.” Moreover,
the record reflects that after the department issued the initial determination of ineligibility,

5
but before the August 10 de novo review hearing on the matter was held, relator changed
her address in the unemployment insurance system to reflect an Evansville address.
Relator then testified at the August 10 hearing that she was in the process of moving to
Evansville immediately after she was laid off, but that her answers to the questions in the
department’s online system were the result of her confusion “with all the pop up questions”
in the online system.
The administrative penalty was based on the department’s determination that relator
lied at the August 10 hearing in order to attempt to obtain unemployment benefits. And
after the hearing on September 12, following relator’s appeal of the administrative penalty,
the ULJ affirmed the imposition of the administrative penalty based on relator’s testimony
that was consistent with her August 10 testimony. The evidence presented at the hearings,
along with the ULJ’s credibility determination that relator provided false testimony at the
August 10 and September 12 hearings, is sufficient to support a determination that relator
provided false statements or representations in order to obtain or attempt to obtain
unemployment benefits. Therefore, the ULJ did not err by affirming the imposition of the
13-week administrative penalty under Minn. Stat. § 268.182, subd. 2(a).
Affirmed.