Matthew J. Miller, Relator,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0927

Matthew J. Miller,
Relator,

vs.
Hollenback & Nelson, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed March 15, 2021
Affirmed
Johnson, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 37660238-3

Matthew J. Miller, St. Cloud, Minnesota (pro se relator)

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

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Pres iding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
Matthew J. Miller challenges the denial of his application for unemployment
benefits. We conclude that the unempl oyment-law judge properl y dismissed Miller’s

2
request for reconsideration of an adverse decision because Miller filed the request for
reconsideration after the applicable 20-day deadline. Therefore, we affirm.
FACTS
Miller was employed by Hollenback & Ne lson, Inc., a commercial concrete
contractor, from June 2016 un til September 2019, as a block tender at a wage of $35.41
per hour. Unfortunately, in April 2018, Miller sustained an on-the-job injury that prevented
him from performing that job. As a result, the employer assigned him to light-duty work,
which paid a lower wage, though he supplemented his wages with workers’ compensation
benefits. In September 2019, Miller’s physician determined that he likely would be unable
to return to his former position of block tender. Shortly thereafter, Miller and the employer
entered into a settlement agreement to reso lve his workers’ compensation claim. The
settlement agreement states that Miller’s em ployment ended on or about September 16,
2019, the date on which he signed the agreement.
Miller applied to the department of em ployment and economic development for
unemployment benefits. On November 8, 2019, the department issued an initial
determination that Miller is ineligible for benefits on the ground that he quit his job without
a medical necessity. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1, 1(7)(i) (2020). The notice of the
determination states that it “will become fi nal unless an appeal is filed by Monday,
December 2, 2019.”
Miller filed a timely administrative a ppeal. On December 23, 2019, an
unemployment-law judge (ULJ ) issued a written decisi on upholding the initial
determination of ineligibility. The decision states that it “will be final unless a request for

3
reconsideration is filed with the unemployme nt law judge on or before Monday, January
13, 2020.”
Miller filed a request for reconsideration on March 17, 2020, more than two months
after the January 13, 2020 deadline. On April 24, 2020, the ULJ issued an order dismissing
the request for reconsideration on the ground that it was untimely. Miller appeals.
DECISION
Miller argues that the ULJ erred in her December 23, 2019, decision by upholding
the initial determination that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits. In response, the
department argues that this court may not cons ider the merits of the ULJ’s December 23,
2019 decision because Miller did not file a timely request for reconsideration. Miller has
not filed a reply brief.
After the department has made an initial determination of ineligibility, see Minn.
Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2 (2020), an app licant may file an administrative appeal, id.,
subd. 2(f); Minn. Stat. § 268.103 (2020). If the administrative appeal is timely, it must be
heard by a ULJ, who must issu e a written decision. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subds. 1, 1a
(2020). But if the administrative appeal is untimely, a different consequence is prescribed
by statute: “The unemployment law judge must issue a decision dismissing the appeal as
untimely if the judge decides the appeal was not filed within 20 calendar days after the
sending of the determination.” Id., subd. 1a(c).
After the ULJ has issued a decision in a timely administrative appeal, any party or
the commissioner “may within 20 calendar days of the sending of the unemployment law
judge’s decision . . . file a request for reconsid eration asking the judge to reconsider that

4
decision.” Id., subd. 2(a). Again, if the request for reconsideration is untimely, the
consequence is prescribed by statute: “The unemployment law judge must issue a decision
dismissing the request for reconsideration as untimely if the judge decides the request for
reconsideration was not filed within 20 calendar days after the sending of the decision . . . .”
Id., subd. 2(f).
The department contends in its responsive brief that, because the ULJ dismissed the
request for reconsideration on the ground that it was untimely, “the only question before
the court in this matter is whether the UL J’s decision to dismiss Miller’s request for
reconsideration as untimely was correct.” In support of this contention, the department
cites opinions in which appellate courts have declined to review the merits of an applicant’s
claim of eligibility after the applicant failed to file a tim ely administrative appeal. See,
e.g., Semanko v. Department of Emp’t Servs., 244 N.W.2d 663, 666 (Minn. 1976); Kennedy
v. American Paper Recycling Corp., 714 N.W.2d 738, 739-40 (Minn. App. 2006); see also
Jackson v. Minnesota Department of Manpower Servs., 207 N.W.2d 62, 63 (Minn. 1973).
Those cases generally adhere to the principle that the deadline for an administrative appeal
is “absolute and unambiguous” and that an applicant’s failure to meet the deadline forfeits
judicial review of the merits of the agency’s initial determination of ineligibility. Semanko,
244 N.W.2d at 666.
The department has not cited any author ity for the proposition that an applicant’s
failure to file a timely re quest for reconsideration of a ULJ’s adverse decision on
administrative appeal limits the scope of this court’s review of the ULJ’s earlier decision.
We are not aware of any such authority. We note, however, that the statutory language

5
applicable to the two stages of agency proceedings is nearly identical. Compare Minn.
Stat. § 268.105, subds. 1a(c) with Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(f). In either situation, an
applicant’s untimeliness prevents the ULJ from considering th e merits of the applicant’s
argument for eligibility at that stage of the agency proceedings. In the absence of a contrary
rule, we apply the rule con cerning untimely administrative appeals to Miller’s untimely
request for reconsideration. Thus, our review is limited to the question whether Miller’s
request for reconsideration was timely.
Miller does not dispute that he filed his request for reconsiderati on 65 days after the
deadline. Thus, his request for reconsideration was untimely. Therefore, the ULJ did not
err by dismissing the request for reconsideration. In light of that conclusion, we may not
consider the merits of Miller’s argument th at the ULJ erred in her December 23, 2019
decision by upholding the initial determination that he is ineligible for unemployment
benefits. See Semanko , 244 N.W.2d at 666; Jackson, 207 N.W.2d at 63; Kennedy, 714
N.W.2d at 739.
Affirmed.