Rosemary Gyawu, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0669

Rosemary Gyawu,
Relator,

vs.

St. Therese Home, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed December 24, 2018
Affirmed as modified
Klaphake, Judge*

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File Nos. 35858589-3; 36068309-3

Rosemary Gyawu, Crystal, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Lee B. Nelson, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and
Klaphake, 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
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Relator Rosemary Gyawu challenges the determination of an unemployment -law
judge (ULJ) that she committed misrepresentation by submitting inaccurate information to
the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development ( DEED) without
a good-faith belief as to the correctness of the information, and argues that the she did not
have a fair hea ring. Because the record demonstrates that relator had a fair hearing and
because substantial evidence in the record supports the ULJ’s determination that relator
did not have a good -faith belief as to the correctness of the information she submitted to
DEED, we affirm. Because the ULJ inaccurately calculated the amount that relator was
overpaid, we modify to reflect the correct amount of the overpayment.
D E C I S I O N
I. Relator had a fair hearing.

The ULJ has an obligation to conduct a hearing that c learly and fully develops the
relevant facts and preserves the parties’ rights to a fair hearing. Minn. R. 3310.2921 (2017).
“Each party may examine witnesses, cross -examine the other party’s witnesses, and offer
and object to exhibits .” Ywswf v. Telepla n Wireless Servs., Inc. , 726 N.W.2d 525, 529
(Minn. App. 2007); see also Minn. R. 3310.2921.
In this case, relator first argues that the hearing was unfair because she did not have
all of the exhibits. The ULJ asked about the exhibits at the start of the hearing. When he
realized that relator may not have all the exhibits , he asked her if she wanted to delay the
hearing to ensure she had all of the exhibits. Relator stated that she wanted to proceed, and

3
she did not object to the ULJ admitting all of the exhibits. Relator’s lack of any of the
exhibits under these circumstances did not render the hearing unfair. Furthermore, relator
makes no argument as to how the lack of any exhibits may have prejudiced her. See
Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr. Inc. , 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (1975) (explaining that to
prevail, an appellant must show both error and resultant prejudice).
Relator further argues that the hearing was unfair because the ULJ had difficulty
understanding her during the hearing. A ULJ is required to “provide an interpreter, when
necessary, upon the request of a party.” Minn. R. 3310.2911 (2017). And a ULJ must
“continue any hearing where a witness or party needs an interpreter in order to be
understood or to understand the proceedings.” Id.
Here, relator did not request an interpreter, and the record does not indicate that the
ULJ did not understand her position or that she did not understand the proceedings . See
Ywswf 726 N.W.2d at 530 (finding relator’ s rights were not prejudiced when she did not
request interpreter and the record did not indicate that she did not understand the
proceedings or that the ULJ did not understand her). Although the ULJ expressed difficulty
understanding relator at times, he consistently asked her to repeat or clarify her statements
to ensure he understood her. The ULJ did not cut her off or limit her ability to testify, and
the record demonstrates that relator was able to explain her position. Relator does not cite
to any specific information or argument that the ULJ failed to understand which might have
prejudiced her case. See Midway, 237 N.W.2d at 78. Contrary to relator’s assertion, the
ULJ conducted an even-handed, fair hearing.

4
II. Substantial evidence in view of the entire record supports the ULJ’s
finding that relator committed misrepresentation.

When reviewing the decision of a ULJ, we may affirm the decision, remand it for
further proceedings, or reverse or modify it if the substantial rights of the relator have been
prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are “unsupported by
substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitte d.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105,
subd. 7(d) (2018). “[Appellate courts] review the ULJ’s findings of fact in the light most
favorable to the decision and will not disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in
the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc. , 888
N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted). “Credibility determinations are the
exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.” Bangtson v. Allina
Med. Grp., 766 N.W.2d 328, 332 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted) . We apply a de
novo standard when reviewing questions of law. Superior Glass, Inc. v. Johnson , 896
N.W.2d 137, 142 (Minn. App. 2017).
“An applicant has committed misrepresentation if the applicant is overpaid
unemployment benefits by making a false statement or representation without a good faith
belief as to the correctness of the statement or representation.” Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd.
2(a) (2018). “After the discovery of facts indicating misrepresentation, the commissioner
must issue a determination of overpayment penalty assessing a penalty equal to 40 percent
of the amount overpaid.” Id.
In this case, relator worked part time as a nursing assistant for 17 weeks while
receiving unemployment benefits . Each week , relator submitted information to DEED

5
stating the number of hours she worked and her income. Relator submitted inaccurate
information every week, underreporting the number of hours she worked 15 out of 17
weeks, and underreporting her income all 17 weeks. Relator admitted that she submitted
inaccurate information and that she was overpaid as a result. But relator argues that she
had a good-faith basis for her inaccurate submissions.
Relator testified that she did not know exactly how many hours she worked each
week or her weekly income because she was paid bi -weekly. She testified that she kept
records of her hours and tried to average out her bi-weekly hours and income across each
individual week, which led to her unintentionally inaccurately reporting her weekly hours
and income . Ho wever, this is inconsistent with the record, which shows that relator
consistently underreported the number of hours she worked and her income. If relator was
accidentally attributing her hours or income to the wrong week, the total number of hours
and income she reported would be accurate, with each under report corresponding to an
over report in a different week. Instead, relator consistently underreported both the number
of hours she worked and her income. The record also indicates that relator’s empl oyer
tracked her hours and pay electronically and that relator could have checked her paystub
or timecard on a computer at any time. Relator admitted that she was aware of this
program, but testified that she did not initially understand how to use it, and did not attempt
to learn to use it until sometime after she submitted 17 inaccurate reports to DEED.
Relator also testified that someone from DEED told her not to worry if she entered
her hours or income inaccurately, and to simply enter what she thought her hours and
income were. To the extent relator believed she was not required to enter information

6
accurately, that would only demonstrate that she did not intend to defraud DEED, it would
not show that she had a good-faith belief as to the correctness of her statements, as required
by Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 2 (2018). The statute does not require that relator intended
to defraud DEED with her false statements; only that she made false statements without a
good-faith belief that they were correct. The record contains substantial evidence that
supports the ULJ’s finding that relator did not have a good-faith belief that the information
she submitted to DEED was correct.
III. Amount of overpayment.
DEED acknowledges that the ULJ inaccurately calc ulated the amount that relator
was overpaid; that relator was overpaid $4,323 and underpaid $229, for a net overpayment
of $4,094. We, therefore, modify the overpayment amount to $4,094 and the
misrepresentation penalty to 40% of that amount.
Affirmed as modified.