Renee Vasko, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0637

Renee Vasko,
Relator,

vs.

Dominion Cares,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed November 25, 2019
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 36682997-5

Renee Vasko, Silver Lake, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Dominion Cares, Glencoe Minnesota (respondent)

Anne B. Froelich, Departme nt of Employment and Econom ic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presid ing Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and Bratvold,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Relator Renee Vasko appeals from an orde r of an unemployment law judge (ULJ)
affirming on reconsideration that relator received unemployment benefits through
misrepresentation and is therefore subject to a mandatory misrep resentation penalty.
Relator challenges the ULJ’s determination th at she committed misrepresentation when
she failed to accurately report her hours wo rked, and she argues that the ULJ erred by
refusing to consider evidence that relator submitted the day before the appeal hearing. We
affirm.
FACTS
Relator established a benefit account with the Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED). At the time, relator worked part-time
for Dominion Cares (Dominion) as a personal care attendant.1
Relator received unemployment benefits from February 4, 2018, through April 28,
2018, while working for Dominion. On June 7, 2018, DEED audited relator’s account and
sent questionnaires to both relator and Dominion. Relator responded to the questionnaire,
indicating that no corrections needed to be made to the hours that she had previously
reported for the weeks in question. Relator also answered “no” to whether she received

1 Relator had held two jobs—o ne of which was with Dominion. Relator was terminated
from her other employment for reasons which ar e unclear based on the record before us.
Relator continued to work for Dominion and was eligible for reduced benefits under Minn.
Stat. § 268.085 (2018), which required accurate reporting of her hours worked and wages
earned.

3
any other payment than what she reported betw een February 4, 2018, and June 9, 2018.
Dominion also responded to the questionnaire, listing the hours that relator worked and the
earnings for each of the weeks in question. Relator’s and Dominion’s reported hours
matched for only one of the weeks in question.
DEED made two determinations: first, that relator’s earnings while collecting
unemployment benefits were greater than relator had reported, resulting in an overpayment
of benefits (the overpayment issue), and second, that relator knowingly misrepresented her
earnings and was subject to an overpayment penalty (the misrepresentation issue).
Concerning the overpayment issue, DEED determined only that relator’s reported earnings
were incorrect, regardless of relator’s mo tivation, leading to an overpayment of
unemployment benefits. Concerning the misrep resentation issue, DEED determined that
the overpayment resulted from relator havi ng “intentionally misstated her hours and
earnings.” Relator was ordere d to pay a mandatory penalty equal to 40 percent of the
overpaid unemployment benefits.
Relator appealed both the overpayment issu e and the misrepresentation issue, but
the appeals were dismissed after relator failed to participate in the appeal hearing. Relator
requested reconsideration of the dismissal and a new hearing was scheduled. The day
before the rescheduled appeal hearing, relator sent exhibits to the ULJ.
At the hearing, the ULJ established that relator did not have copies of Dominion’s
exhibits because she had misp laced them, and that Dominion did not have copies of
relator’s exhibits because relator had sent them to the ULJ only one day earlier. The ULJ

4
did not admit either party’s exhibits into evidence and stated that the ULJ would decide the
case based on the testimony at the hearing.
During the hearing, relator maintained that she had accurately reported the number
of hours that she worked and the dollar am ounts she earned. Dominion’s representative
testified that relator worked the hours in dicated on Dominion’s timesheets, and that
Dominion paid relator accordingly.
The ULJ found that relator was overpaid th rough misrepresentation, that she must
repay the benefits, and that she must pay the mandatory penalty. The ULJ found that, when
relator filed requests for benefits, relator kn ew “that she had worked the additional hours
and that her earnings were higher than wh at she was reporting to [DEED].” The ULJ
explained, concerning the misrepresentation issue, that:
[Relator] testified that she received a handbook from [DEED]
when she initially applied for benefits, and that she was aware
of the requirement that she report all work and earnings when
requesting benefits. Asked wh ether there was any reason she
was incapable of giving correct responses, she answered in the
negative. Instead, she maintained that her original responses
were correct and that [Dominio n] and [DEED] got it wrong.
But that was ruled out in the [overpayment issue] decision.

Relator requested reconsideration of th e misrepresentation issue, but not the
overpayment issue. The ULJ affirmed the earlier decision on the misrepresentation issue.
Relator appealed by certiorari, challenging the ULJ’s decisions concerning both the
overpayment issue and the misrepresentation issue.

5
DEED moved to dismiss the appeal in part, arguing that relator requested
reconsideration only on the misrepresentation issue, and not on the overpayment issue. We
issued an order limiting relator’s appeal to the misrepresentation issue.
D E C I S I O N
Relator argues that the ULJ erred by findin g that she committed misrepresentation
when she failed to correctly report her hours.
We review “a ULJ’s findings of fact in a light most favorable to the decision, and
will not disturb the findings so long as there is evidence in the reco rd that substantially
supports them.” Gonzalez Diaz v. Three Rivers Cmty. Action, Inc., 917 N.W.2d 813, 815-
16 (Minn. App. 2018). Appella te courts apply a de novo standard when reviewing
questions of law. Superior Glass, Inc. v. Johnson , 896 N.W.2d 137, 142 (Minn. App.
2017).
Misrepresentation is committed where an “applicant is ove rpaid 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).
“Whether a claimant knowingly and willfully misrepresented or misstated material facts to
obtain benefits involves the credibility of the claimant’s testimony which lies within the
province of the [ULJ].” Burnevik v. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 367 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Minn.
App. 1985).
The ULJ’s determination that relator was ove rpaid unemployment benefits is final.
Relator received benefits to which she was not entitled, beca use the ULJ found that her
reported hours and earnings were inaccurate and relator did not request reconsideration of

6
that issue. The only questio n before us is whether relato r made false statements or
misrepresentations without a good faith belief concerning their correctness. The ULJ found
misrepresentation and the record supports that determination.
In finding misrepresentation, the ULJ found relator not cred ible. The record
supports the ULJ’s finding that relator’s argument that she did not misrepresent her hours
of work relied solely on her argument that Dominion’s records of her hours were incorrect.
In resolving the overpayment i ssue, the ULJ found as a fact that Dominion’s records of
relator’s hours were correct. And, as noted, that decision is final. Relator did not request
reconsideration of the overpayment issue. Relator’s present appeal is limited to
challenging the misrepresentation finding, which is substantially supported by the record.
Relator makes no argument that her incorrect reporting of hours and income resulted from
inadvertence or some other good faith mistake. Her argument on appeal is limited to an
attempt to relitigate the now-final overpayment issue.
The ULJ also concluded that a penalty mu st be assessed against relator. “After
discovery of facts indicating misrepresentati on, the [ULJ] must issue a determination of
overpayment penalty assessing a penalty equa l to 40 percent of the amount overpaid.”
Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 2(a). Because the record supports the ULJ’s finding that relator
committed misrepresentation, relator is subject to the mandatory statutory penalty.
Finally, relator argues that she did not receive a fair hearing because the ULJ did
not use the exhibits that relator faxed the day before the rescheduled appeal hearing. Even
if relator is correct, she did no t preserve this issue. The e xhibits in question relate to
whether there was an overpayment . As discussed, the overpayment issue is final and it

7
cannot now be reviewed. Relator, acting pro se, is held to the same rules and standards as
an attorney. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001). Relator’s
failure to request reconsideration of the ULJ’s decision on the overpayment issue may have
been a mistake on relator’s part . But that mistake cannot be a basis to appeal the final
determination of the ULJ, and we dismissed relator’s attempted appeal of the overpayment
determination.
Affirmed.