In the Matter of: Donald Keefe.

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0055

In the Matter of: Donald Keefe.

Filed October 28, 2019
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File Nos. 36706139-3, 36707519

Donald Keefe, Watkins, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Lossom Allen, Anne Froelich , Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Smith,
John, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment -law judge (ULJ) that his
unemployment benefits must be reduced because he received Social Security benefits. We
affirm.

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

2
FACTS
In August 2017, relator Donald Keefe established an unemployment -benefits
account (2017 account) with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED). The following February, Keefe applied for and began receiving
Social Security “old age” benefits. See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 4 (2018) (referring to
“Social Security old age benefits”). He continued to apply for and receive unemployment
benefits but did not report his Social Security old-age benefits to DEED until he established
a new unemployment-benefits account in August 2018 (2018 account).
DEED subsequently determined that Keefe’s unemployment benefits for February
2018 through August 2018 should have been reduced to reflect his Social Security old-age
benefits, and that he was overpaid $3,244. DEED also determined that unemployment
benefits under the 2018 account would be reduced because of Keefe’s Social Security old-
age benefits.
Keefe appealed both determinations, noting that his unemployment benefits had
been reduced in 2014 because he received Social Security benefits and “now 4 years later
it’s happening again.” A ULJ conducted a de novo evidentiary hearing. Keefe testified
that his 2014 unemployment benefits were reduced because he received Social Security
survivor benefits. And then in 2018, his Social Security was “switched over” from survivor
benefits to his own old -age benefits. The ULJ determined that Keefe’s unemployment
benefits for February 2018 through August 2018 and under the 2018 account must be
reduced, and that Keefe must repay the $3,244 he was overpaid between February 2018

3
and August 2018. Keefe sought reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed. Keefe appeals by
writ of certiorari.
D E C I S I O N
We review a ULJ’s decision to determine whether a party’s substantial rights were
prejudiced because the decision was made upon unlawful procedure, affected by legal
error, or unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole. Minn. Stat.
§ 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2018). We view the ULJ’s findings in the light mo st favorable to
the decision and will not reverse if there is evidence that reasonably tends to sustain them.
Hasledalen v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 811 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. App. 2012). But
we review legal questions, such as interpretation of a statute, de novo. Id.
An applicant for unemployment benefits must report if he is receiving, has filed for,
or intends to file for, Social Security “old age” benefits, because the receipt of such benefits
may reduce the amount of unemployment benefits for w hich the applicant is eligible.
Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 4(a) -(c). There is no reduction if the applicant received the
“old age” benefits throughout the entire period on which his unemployment benefits are
calculated. Id., subd. 4(a). But if he received the benefits for less than the entire period,
“50 percent of the weekly equivalent of the primary Social Security old age benefit ” must
be deducted from his weekly unemployment benefit amount. Id., subd. 4(b).
Keefe’s 2017 unemployment-benefits account is calculated based on the period July
1, 2016, through June 30, 2017 ; his 2018 unemployment-benefits account is calculated
based on the period July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018. Keefe does not dispute that he
did not receive Social Security old-age benefits throughout the entirety of either of these

4
base periods. Nor does he dispute that his unemployment benefits under both accounts are
therefore subject to re duction for Social Security old -age benefits under Minn. Stat.
§ 268.085, subd. 4(b).
Rather, Keefe argues that his unemployment benefits were erroneously reduced in
2014 (when he received Social Security survivor benefits, not old-age benefits), and that
the “improperly collected money” from 2014 should be credited against his 2018
overpayment. See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 4 (excepting Social Security survivor
benefits from deduction). This argument is unavailing. Even if DEED erred in calculating
Keefe’s 2014 unemployment benefits, DEED’s decision did not, as Keefe contends, “la[y]
dormant,” but became final years ago. Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f) (2018) (providing
that an unchallenged determination as to an applicant’s eligibility for benefits is final after
20 calendar days). And his 2018 unemployment benefits are not subjec t to modification
on equitable grounds, such as to offset a prior error. See Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3
(2018) (providing that there is no equitable allowance of unemployment benefits); see also
Hasledalen, 811 N.W.2d at 136 (declining to relieve rela tor of overpayment obligation
because of unreported Social Security old-age benefits, even though failure to report may
have been attributable to conflicting or inaccurate advice from government employees).
Accordingly, the ULJ could not consider the validity of DEED’s 2014 reduction of Keefe’s
unemployment benefits or otherwise account for that reduction in determining whether
benefits available for February 2018 through August 2019 must be reduced because of
Social Security old-age benefits.

5
In sum, the ULJ did not err by concluding that Keefe’s unemployment benefits must
be reduced to reflect his Social Security old-age benefits and that he must repay the $3,244
he was overpaid between February 2018 and August 2018.
Affirmed.