This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A15-0459

Helmut Scholz,

Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

Filed October 13, 2015

Affirmed

Larkin, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 32814029-3

Helmut Scholz, Kansas City, Missouri (pro se relator)

Lee B. Nelson, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, 

St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Chutich, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Larkin, 

Judge. 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

LARKIN, Judge

Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s dismissal of his appeal of an

ineligibility determination as untimely. We affirm.
2

FACTS

On August 18, 2014, respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and 

Economic Development (DEED) issued a determination of ineligibility concluding that 

relator Helmut Scholz had been overpaid unemployment benefits from September 8 to 

October 13, 2013, resulting in a total overpayment of $1,380. DEED informed Scholz 

that “[t]his determination will become final unless an appeal is filed by Monday, 

September 8, 2014.”

On September 9, 2014, Scholz filed an appeal, arguing that there were 

discrepancies between the payments summarized in the ineligibility determination and 

the amounts deposited in his bank account. Scholz stated, “I suppose I missed the 

deadline to appeal by one day, but since it took [DEED] eight months to reply to my 

January 22, 2014 letter I believe my being one day late should not weigh too heavily.”1

An unemployment-law judge (ULJ) dismissed Scholz’s appeal as untimely. The 

ULJ reasoned that he had “no legal authority to hear and consider the appeal” because 

Scholz did not file within the legally required time period. Scholz requested 

reconsideration, acknowledging that he missed the appeal deadline by one day but 

arguing that the amount of his overpayment was “clearly inaccurate.” The ULJ affirmed 

the dismissal.

This certiorari appeal follows.

 

1

Scholz indicates that after receiving a 1099-G tax form from DEED and being unable to 

reconcile the payments that he had received with the information in the form, “[h]e wrote 

back to [DEED] asking for a detailed breakdown of the payments so as to enable him to 

reconcile the account.” Scholz further indicates that “[t]his request remains unanswered 

to this date.” 
3

D E C I S I O N

This court may reverse or modify a ULJ’s decision “if the substantial rights of the 

petitioner may have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or 

decision” are “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as 

submitted” or “affected by other error of law.” 2015 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 1, 

art. 6, § 12, at 1693 (amending Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2014)). “An agency 

decision of whether to dismiss an appeal as untimely is a question of law, which we 

review de novo.” Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d 25, 29 

(Minn. App. 2012).

“A determination of . . . ineligibility is final unless an appeal is filed by the 

applicant . . . within 20 calendar days after sending.” Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f) 

(2014). “That 20-day deadline is absolute and unambiguous, and a ULJ must dismiss an 

untimely appeal from an eligibility determination for lack of jurisdiction.” Kangas v. 

Indus. Welders & Machinists, Inc., 814 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation 

omitted). “[T]here are no provisions for extensions or exceptions.” Johnson v. Metro. 

Med. Ctr., 395 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986).

Scholz concedes that he did not comply with the deadline to appeal DEED’s 

ineligibility determination. However, he contends that the ULJ’s dismissal of his appeal 

as untimely is “rather unseemly” because DEED did not respond to his January 2014 

request for information regarding his unemployment-benefits account. 

Because Scholz filed his appeal one day after the statutory filing deadline, the ULJ 

properly dismissed Scholz’s appeal as untimely. Although this result may seem harsh, 
4

there are no exceptions to the 20-day deadline, and “[t]here is no equitable or common 

law denial or allowance of unemployment benefits.” Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 

(2014).

Scholz asks this court to “order [DEED] to show a proper accounting of the 

payments in order to establish the correct amount of overpayment.” He “acknowledges 

the possibility of an overpayment” but argues that “the amount claimed as the alleged 

overpayment is clearly incorrect.” Because Scholz did not file a timely appeal of 

DEED’s determination that he was overpaid $1,380, the determination is final. See

Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f). The only decision that is before this court for review is 

the dismissal of Scholz’s appeal of DEED’s ineligibility determination as untimely. 

Because Scholz filed his appeal after the 20-day filing deadline, that decision was not 

erroneous. 

Affirmed.