Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since my claim was exhausted and I do not qualify for an extension, I filed a new claim as I had been working during my old one. I didn't hear anything at all from EDD for a month, then today they finally responded by email saying I had to wait until my old claim expires on 1/26/13 to file a new one.
Is this true even though money on my old claim was exhausted in October?
Yes. You can have one active claim per calendar year.
That isn't true in every state - and it wouldn't be true if OP's claim had qualified for EUC. Before transferring OP to EUC from that claim, under EUC regs CA would need to test again for new state benefit eligibility. If his part-time earnings qualified him for a new state claim, CA would be required to pay those state benefits (unless DNCP could be applied). Even though payment on that claim might be deferred under DNCP, the new claim would remain with a beginning date up to six months after the beginning date of the first claim and a bye date of up to six months after the first bye.
Also, Illinois, for example, will open more than one claim in a benefit year. I got a DM recently from an Illinois recipient who was encouraged by an Illinois rep to open another claim based on her recent part-time earnings (she was still working this job). She still had old earnings not previously used in the base-year for the first claim. Those unused earnings would have aged out in the next quarter. The rep told her she would lose those earnings if she didn't use them now - even though she had not yet reached her bye - and encouraged her to file a new claim. In Illinois, if HR4213 is applied to this new, second claim, recipient is told they will not be able to open another claim for a year. I believe CA does this, as well.
There have been several other reports on this board of people who have had two state claims - six months apart. So, it does happen under certain circumstances. It may be CA is one those states which will not do this if EUC isn't in the picture.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 12-26-2012 at 10:20 PM..
I received a claim form from EDD today. The dates are 12/9/12 - 12/22/12. It also had the box checked with an "X" for filling out the back with work searches.
It was interesting that the ending date on it says 01/02/10.
I received a claim form from EDD today. The dates are 12/9/12 - 12/22/12. It also had the box checked with an "X" for filling out the back with work searches.
It was interesting that the ending date on it says 01/02/10.
This relates to expiration date of the current legislation. OP's was asking can he open another claim in the same benefit year - an issue separate and apart from the January 2 expiration date.
Quote:
2. Relevant Federal Eligibility Dates:
December 22, 2012- Exhaust state benefits to transition to Tier 1
December 22, 2012 - Exhaust one Tier to transition to next Tier
I still don't understand why I didn't get any form of response when I applied and why it took them over 2 weeks to respond to my email. Here's what they wrote:
"Thank you for your inquiry. Your claim benefits are exhausted and you do not qualify for an extension (your recent application could not have been filed). You may file a new claim 1-5 days prior to 01-26-13 (expiration date of your current claim is 01-26-13) if not working full time. Have a good day"
I had been working part to full time for 6 months out of my benefit year, so I would qualify monetary wise. Why are they making me wait until an arbitrary date to re-apply when I have no benefits left on this claim?
That isn't true in every state - and it wouldn't be true if OP's claim had qualified for EUC. Before transferring OP to EUC from that claim, under EUC regs CA would need to test again for new state benefit eligibility. If his part-time earnings qualified him for a new state claim, CA would be required to pay those state benefits (unless DNCP could be applied). Even though payment on that claim might be deferred under DNCP, the new claim would remain with a beginning date up to six months after the beginning date of the first claim and a bye date of up to six months after the first bye.
There have been several other reports on this board of people who have had two state claims - six months apart. So, it does happen under certain circumstances. It may be CA is one those states which will not do this if EUC isn't in the picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turlington
I still don't understand why I didn't get any form of response when I applied and why it took them over 2 weeks to respond to my email. Here's what they wrote:
I had been working part to full time for 6 months out of my benefit year, so I would qualify monetary wise. Why are they making me wait until an arbitrary date to re-apply when I have no benefits left on this claim?
Because, as I said above, absent EUC, CA has no reason to test for a new claim eligibility at this time. You have not incurred a triggering event such as an EUC application/tier transition, job loss, or bye.
Thank you for your help Ariadne.
I guess I have no choice but to wait another month. Hopefully I'll find work before then because I'm plum out of money!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
