New Claim and Extensions (California EDD) (collect, file, receive, apply)

[Unemployed Californian]

Hello:

Assume that I qualify for an unemployment claim in California (with eligibility for extended benefits), and that I had sufficient lag earnings to qualify for a second claim. (I assume that the second claim cannot start any earlier than the bye for the first claim. Is this correct?) EDD does not yet have the correct lag period information (and therefore denied the second claim), but I expect that they will have the correct information upon appeal.

The first claim bye was in July, 2012. The second claim didn't start until December, 2012. (The first claim was ultimately backdated, which apparently affected the beginning date of the second claim.) I plan to request a backdate for the second claim, as well.

Extended benefits from the first claim lasted until January, 2013. (Two months beyond the denied second claim start date.)

If second claim is approved (upon appeal), how would EDD process it (given the extended benefits that lasted until January, 2013)? For example, would it start in December, 2012 - unless it's backdated? Also, would I revert to the extended benefits from the first claim after 26 weeks on the second claim? Or, would I have to wait a full year (until the second claim's bye) to resume the first claim's extended benefits? (From other posts, I assume that the extended benefits from the first claim are available/used first.)

Not sure yet if the second claim also qualifies for extended benefits. It depends on whether or not the backdate is approved. (If backdated, the base period would allow for extended benefits.) If it's not backdated, it's hardly worth pursuing at all.

So, I have two tasks: 1) appeal the denial, and 2) request a backdate. I believe that the second year must be approved, before I can request a backdate. (Is this correct?)

Also, are there any deadlines to be concerned with regarding the extended benefits for either claim (other than the end of 2013)?

I understand that the second claim can be delayed/suspended, if the benefits are substantially less than the first claim's extended benefits.

Also, can anyone provide a link specifically for such questions on EDD's website (or elsewhere) regarding these (or related) issues?

Thank you.

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

Assume that I qualify for an unemployment claim in California (with eligibility for extended benefits), and that I had sufficient lag earnings to qualify for a second claim. (I assume that the second claim cannot start any earlier than the bye for the first claim. Is this correct?) EDD does not yet have the correct lag period information (and therefore denied the second claim), but I expect that they will have the correct information upon appeal.

When did this "denial occur." Why would you appeal this denial?

What you want is to continue on EUC from your first claim or, at the very least, begin payment on this EUC before a second claim is established.

LAG earnings are irrelevant in 95% of the cases in CA if you have not worked and earned $900/$1300 to establish a requalifying claim. Denials are the norm. You have nothing to appeal if you haven't worked.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

The first claim bye was in July, 2012. The second claim didn't start until December, 2012. (The first claim was ultimately backdated, which apparently affected the beginning date of the second claim.) I plan to request a backdate for the second claim, as well.

What second claim? What backdating? Are you talking about CA's normal backdating to the Sunday preceding the date you filed? Why would you want to back date the second claim?

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

Extended benefits from the first claim lasted until January, 2013. (Two months beyond the denied second claim start date.)

This is a good thing. You began EUC on Claim 1. Therefore, it is preserved for future use.

There NEVER WAS a claim 2. You DO NOT WANT a Claim 2 until you've collected at least some EUC on Claim 1.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

If second claim is approved (upon appeal), how would EDD process it (given the extended benefits that lasted until January, 2013)? For example, would it start in December, 2012 - unless it's backdated?

If Claim 2 is approved immediately following exhaustion of state benefits from July 2012 claim, ALL EUC ATTACHED TO CLAIM 1 is lost. DO NOT APPEAL THIS DENIAL.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

Also, would I revert to the extended benefits from the first claim after 26 weeks on the second claim?

No. You've just lost your EUC from Claim 1 because of the immediate establishment of Claim 2 upon exhaustion of state benefits from Claim 1. In which case, if you've been paid EUC from Claim 1 erroneously because CA should have opened a new state claim, you will be in overpayment status and required to repay all EUC you've received thus far.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

Or, would I have to wait a full year (until the second claim's bye) to resume the first claim's extended benefits? (From other posts, I assume that the extended benefits from the first claim are available/used first.)

First claim EUC is lost. See above.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

Not sure yet if the second claim also qualifies for extended benefits. It depends on whether or not the backdate is approved. (If backdated, the base period would allow for extended benefits.) If it's not backdated, it's hardly worth pursuing at all.

You don't want a second claim. It may have a smaller and shorter benefit. HR4213 would not apply because CA would void your EUC eligibility on the first claim.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

So, I have two tasks: 1) appeal the denial, and 2) request a backdate. I believe that the second year must be approved, before I can request a backdate. (Is this correct?)

No, you don't have any tasks. Leave sleeping dogs lie. See above.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

Also, are there any deadlines to be concerned with regarding the extended benefits for either claim (other than the end of 2013)?

Yes, see above. You DO NOT WANT A NEW SECOND CLAIM established in December when you presumably exhausted your state benefits. See above.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

I understand that the second claim can be delayed/suspended, if the benefits are substantially less than the first claim's extended benefits.

No, the benefits on the second claim CANNOT BE SUSPENDED OR DEFERRED if you establish a second claim immediately following exhaustion of state benefits on the first claim. HR4213 only applies if you are currently receiving EUC, not state benefits.

If CA determines you should never have begun EUC on Claim 1 because of new claim eligibility in December, you are STUCK with the new lower state benefit - and you will have to repay any EUC you've received on the first claim, thus far.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

Also, can anyone provide a link specifically for such questions on EDD's website (or elsewhere) regarding these (or related) issues?

There is nothing on any state website which discusses specifics of EUC eligibility or how the EUC rules/regs are applied.

You can read this, for starters:

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/...10/special.pdf

And then explore the ETA UIPL program letters, here:

ETA Advisories, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor

Frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish and strongly suspect you are unnecessarily complicating what is probably a pretty good first claim.

It appears you think the denial in December, or whenever it occurred, was a bad thing. It was not.

I suggest you leave well enough alone, or you will find yourself with a new claim with a lower benefit and term, lower EUC, and complete loss of EUC on the first claim - and have CA dunning you for the overpayments.

[Ariadne22]

I've excerpted your second DM:

I also have some (very limited) activity that may meet the "some work" requirement during the first claim's benefit period. This brief activity took place about a week or two after the first claim started.

At that time, my first claim had actually not yet started. (The first claim was later backdated to include that period of time.)

For example, since the activity took place so early in the first claim, could it still endanger the extended benefits prior to the first claim bye? (If not, I'm not sure that I see the danger.)

Absolutely, yes, those earnings will endanger EUC from Claim 1 - if you insist on pulling them out of your original base period.

The absolute worst time to have new earnings is in the first six months of a state claim - before EUC is established. States often miss these earnings until after they've begun EUC on a claim.

When the states finally integrate these earnings into their database, they then establish a new state claim effective upon cessation of previous state claim benefits, void the EUC benefits as a nonfault overpayment on their part, and demand the claimant repay the EUC benefits. Those EUC benefits are then forever lost to the claimant.

You cannot have back-to-back state claims and still retain EUC on Claim No. 1.

You will, effectively, be wiping out all the EUC on your first claim if you insist these earnings be pulled from their current base period and moved forward a quarter, thus creating new claim eligibility.

I suspect what you are wanting now is a new state claim because all benefits from Claim 1 were exhausted in January 2013.

You disturb your first claim benefits, and base-year earnings for that claim, at your peril.

[Unemployed Californian]

Ariadne22

Thanks again for your reply, and the effort you put into it. Definitely makes me think, and I'll look it over further. I am thankful for having this forum, and responders such as yourself. (Not sure how you became so knowledgeable.)

For now, I'm still confused regarding one thing. The original claim started in July, 2011. Therefore, the base period (should have) ended in March, 2011.

The second (denied) claim currently starts in December, 2012. Therefore, the base period currently includes payments from July, 2011 through June, 2012. This would include the final salary payment from the job that I lost prior to the establishment of the first claim. (Lag wages include payments which apparently can be earned prior to the payment date.) Lag wages are not included in the first claim base period.

Also, if I successfully have the second claim backdated (to the end of the first claim bye, in July, 2012), then the base period would include all payments after March, 2011. (As noted above, these payments should not be part of the base period of the first claim.) Since these payments are significant, the second claim should qualify for extension benefits on its own. (The first claim would, as well - due to its own base period.)

I have a feeling that I'm not seeing something, which I'm hoping you'll correct. I certainly don't want to make any big mistakes. I plan to re-read all of your responses carefully.

Thank you.

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

For now, I'm still confused regarding one thing. The original claim started in July, 2011. Therefore, the base period (should have) ended in March, 2011.

You said this claim was backdated. To what date was it backdated?

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

The second (denied) claim currently starts in December, 2012. Therefore, the base period currently includes payments from July, 2011 through June, 2012. This would include the final salary payment from the job that I lost prior to the establishment of the first claim. (Lag wages include payments which apparently can be earned prior to the payment date.) Lag wages are not included in the first claim base period.

As I said before:

Originally Posted by Ariadne22

LAG earnings are irrelevant in 95% of the cases in CA if you have not worked and earned $900/$1300 to establish a requalifying claim. Denials are the norm. You have nothing to appeal if you haven't worked.

These earnings on which you are hoping for a new state claim were from the employer on which your first claim is based. LAG earnings from your base-claim employer are generally not allowed as a basis for a new claim unless you've also worked again and had new earnings. Some states are very specific on this. See NJ:

Requalifying Requirement
If you received benefits on an unemployment insurance claim, you
must have worked since the beginning of that claim to qualify for
another unemployment insurance claim after the first claim’s benefit
year ends.

You cannot go from one claim to another successive
claim without working in between. Two claims cannot be based
on the same separation from work.

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/for...s/ui/PR-94.pdf

CA sometimes overlooks this - but not often. All states follow this general parameter.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

I have a feeling that I'm not seeing something, which I'm hoping you'll correct. I certainly don't want to make any big mistakes. I plan to re-read all of your responses carefully.

I think, somehow, somewhere, you've read something on LAG earnings and creating a new claim on the basis of these.

In all but the most very rare occurrences, LAG earnings are only used as a basis for a new state claim if there are also NEW EARNINGS during the benefit year after the claim was established, in most cases FROM A NEW EMPLOYER. Occasionally, late-paid severance/PTO or bonuses might create new claim eligibility but, again, these are not common.

Furthermore, the employer, in the end, is paying these benefits. Your former employer might object to any new claim on the basis of a few weeks' work - especially since you have already had a substantial claim paid by that employer.

[Unemployed Californian]

Hi Ariadne22:

The first claim was backdated from October, 2011 to July, 2011. (This occurred in late 2012, upon appeal.) My employer had given me incorrect information regarding my eligibility, which provided "good cause" to appeal. So far, I have had two successful appeals (one regarding eligibility, one regarding the backdating of the first claim).

You state that California "often overlooks this", but I'm not sure why you're saying this (e.g., exactly where it's prohibited for California). It may not make (intuitive) sense, but it's my understanding that California's lag wages can include payments from the first claim base period employer. (Note the different base periods for the two claims.) I have been doing a lot of research on this, but it's still very easy to misunderstand. That's part of the problem with this whole thing, and is the reason that I am seeking help on this forum. I'm not too concerned if the former employer protests, if they don't have any legal basis for doing so. The "new activity" I described earlier will not meet the earnings/payment requirement, but it may meet the "some work" requirement for California. However, the lag wages from my former employer will meet the requirement (e.g., $1,300 minimum), if allowed.

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

The first claim was backdated from October, 2011 to July, 2011. (This occurred in late 2012, upon appeal.) My employer had given me incorrect information regarding my eligibility, which provided "good cause" to appeal. So far, I have had two successful appeals (one regarding eligibility, one regarding the backdating of the first claim).

So, the final byb date of Claim 1 was July 2011. Therefore, your claim was based on base-year earnings April 2010-March 2011.

When, exactly, did you earn the few weeks' earnings you think might now be combined with lag earnings April 2011-July 2011 to create a new claim?

You got the denial in December 2012 because you were probably transitioning to EUC Tier IV.

The states must test quarterly for possible new claim eligibility whenever you transition to an EUC tier.

State benefits must be paid before federal benefits whenever possible, unless HR4213 applies to continuation of already established payments of federal EUC.

You should have also received denial letters in January 2012 when you exhausted state benefits and CA was transitioning you to Tier 1, again in June 2012 when CA was transitioning you to Tier II, again in September when CA was transitioning you to Tier III, as well as December 2012, when CA was transitioning you to Tier IV.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

You state that California "often overlooks this",

I did not say "often." I said "sometimes."

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

but I'm not sure why you're saying this (e.g., exactly where it's prohibited for California).

This is what I meant by "sometimes." From an EDD employee:

Originally Posted by Diego1212

Depending on your friends last day of work and the effective date of his claim that was filed in 2011, he may have cleared the LAG and established a valid new claim under sec 1277.

Basically, if his old claim began before his last day of work (i.e. Claim BYB effective the Sunday prior to his LDW, for example, if the claim BYB was effective 09-11-11 and his LDW 09-15-11) and he earned over $1300 in earnings that that last week he worked, he would have taken his 1 week waiting period the 2nd week of the claim since he wouldn't have been payable due to XE earnings that first week. If those earnings that last week exceeded $1300, he then would have the necessary 1 day of work and wages ($900 in one qtr or 1.5 x the highest qtr) within the benefit year of his claim that began 09-11-11 to establish a new 26 week claim under 1277.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

That's part of the problem with this whole thing, and is the reason that I am seeking help on this forum. I'm not too concerned if the former employer protests, if they don't have any legal basis for doing so. The "new activity" I described earlier will not meet the earnings/payment requirement, but it may meet the "some work" requirement for California. However, the lag wages from my former employer will meet the requirement (e.g., $1,300 minimum), if allowed.

Unless the new activity is at least $900/$1300, it will not meet your "some work" requirement for CA. See above. So, the LAG earnings are irrelevant.

Anyway, why are we talking about this? If CA would find new claim eligibility, it would do so far earlier than December 2012. It would have done so in January 2012 when your state benefits were exhausted - and voided your EUC.

Again, you don't want that. Now, we are going in circles......

[Unemployed Californian]

riadne22:

Thanks, again.

I see the implication from EDD's response to Diego that you pasted above. (Only "new work" is counted, per that particular response.) However, please see the link below, including the sentence that I pasted below regarding the "some work" requirement under Lag earnings. I've also looked directly at the unemployment code, and have not found anything which states that only new work (earned during the benefit year) is counted toward the earnings requirement.

Miscellaneous MI 15 - Monetary Determinations

Regarding the "some work" requirement:
"Thus, if an individual has performed any personal service as an employee or self-employed individual during the test period for which he received remuneration in any amount, the second condition for clearing the lag test is satisfied."

As noted earlier, the "new activity" I described is very minimal (e.g., a couple hours), and occurred very early in the old benefit year. Its only possible use is in meeting the "some work" requirement described above.

Based upon your other responses, it seems that EDD would cut off the extensions, if I met the requirements for a new claim. To clarify, would this occur immediately after the 26-week period of the first claim? I thought that new claims were prohibited during the benefit year. Do you know have any links to the specific regulations regarding this?

If I'm now understanding this correctly, the best I could hope for (if I appeal) is that EDD would pay me on the first claim (for 26 weeks?), would retroactively cut off the extensions for the first claim, and simultaneously establish a new claim (with extensions). Yeah, I know that there's probably something wrong with this reasoning.

In any case, I still don't see anything in the regulations which prohibit the establishment of a new claim, based upon lag earnings from the job I lost prior to the old claim. (Provided I met the "some work" requirement during the old claim benefit year, as well.) If I'm right, I still don't know exactly what would happen if I appeal.

[Unemployed Californian]

Just thought I'd past the other portion from the link above, as well:

"Paid wages for employment of not less that $1300 during the "high quarter" of the base period of the new claim..." (Nothing regarding the period "earned".) (I received more than this during the benefit period for the old claim, for wages that were actually earned prior to the benefit period for the old claim.)


I'm not necessarily trying to argue or win an appeal through this forum. I'm just trying to figure out exactly what would happen if I win. (Hopefully information backed up by regulations.) My hope is to legally obtain a second benefit year, without completely messing up the first claim (and extensions).

All input is welcome and appreciated.

[Ariadne22]

Reposted with revisions/additions.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

Based upon your other responses, it seems that EDD would cut off the extensions, if I met the requirements for a new claim. To clarify, would this occur immediately after the 26-week period of the first claim? I thought that new claims were prohibited during the benefit year. Do you know have any links to the specific regulations regarding this?

No. Part of the process for moving to EUC is to verify you do not have new state claim eligibility. Because of this, we have many reports on this board of two claims occurring six months apart, voiding EUC on the first claim.

As I said here:

Originally Posted by Ariadne22

The states must test quarterly for possible new claim eligibility whenever you transition to an EUC tier.

State benefits must be paid before federal benefits whenever possible, unless HR4213 applies to continuation of already established payments of federal EUC.

You should have also received denial letters in January 2012 when you exhausted state benefits and CA was transitioning you to Tier 1, again in June 2012 when CA was transitioning you to Tier II, again in September when CA was transitioning you to Tier III, as well as December 2012, when CA was transitioning you to Tier IV.

Per BLS:

Exhaustees cease to be exhaustees when they can establish a valid new benefit
year; therefore, at each quarter change, the state must check to see if an
individual meets the state’s requirements to establish a new benefit year. If the
individual can establish a new benefit year, s/he would no longer qualify for
the EUC08 claim. In these cases, the claimant should be advised that s/he no
longer qualifies for the EUC08 claim and that s/he can file a regular UI claim.

Once the claimant qualifies for a new claim, the payments on the EUC08 claim
must end, even if the Weekly Benefit Amount (WBA) for the new claim is
lower than what the claimant was receiving on the EUC08 claim. [superceded byHR4213]

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/att...IPL23-08a1.pdf

And this from the DOL on a multi-state claim, but the principle remains:

Claimants are only allowed to “go back” to prior state to collect EUC if they had already established an EUC claim in that state prior to qualifying for regular benefits in another state.

Because this claimant immediately qualified for the claim in NJ after (exhausting his/her regular claim in VA), s/he was not an exhaustee for EUC purposes and therefore VA could not establish (by law) an EUC claim and was required by to refer the claimant to NJ (as that was the state in which the claimant had regular eligibility).

Because they could not establish the EUC claim, the claimant therefore did not have any right to go back to VA after his/her NJ claim expired as the VA claim would no longer be the most recent applicable benefit year for the purposes of establishing an EUC claim.

https://www.city-data.com/forum/unemp...l#post27695300

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

If I'm now understanding this correctly, the best I could hope for (if I appeal) is that EDD would pay me on the first claim (for 26 weeks?), would retroactively cut off the extensions for the first claim, and simultaneously establish a new claim (with extensions).

Yes. I've already explained the pitfalls, upthread. You won't receive a dime on that new state claim until the overpayment of EUC on the first claim is satisfied. Of course, there is the remote chance CA will establish the state claim with a date which doesn't void your EUC. Anything is possible.

I wouldn't risk it, but that's just me.

Originally Posted by Unemployed Californian

In any case, I still don't see anything in the regulations which prohibit the establishment of a new claim, based upon lag earnings from the job I lost prior to the old claim. (Provided I met the "some work" requirement during the old claim benefit year, as well.) If I'm right, I still don't know exactly what would happen if I appeal.

What will happen will depend on how CA processes your appeal.

I have nothing further to add to this conversation - we have beat this horse to death.

If you do decide to appeal and try to get a new state claim, please let us know the result.