This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A13-2348

Jennie Rasmussen, 

Relator, 

vs. 

Department of Employment and Economic Development, 

Respondent.

Filed August 18, 2014

Affirmed

Smith, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 31595847-3

Jennie Rasmussen, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, 

Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Smith, 

Judge. 

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

SMITH, Judge

We affirm the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is 

barred from withdrawing her benefit account and establishing a new one because such 

withdrawal is prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3b(c) (2012).
2

FACTS

Relator Jennie Rasmussen worked for North American Wholesale Floral from late 

November 2012 until late July 2013. Rasmussen established an unemployment-benefits

account effective July 21, 2013. On July 23, 2013, respondent Minnesota Department of 

Employment and Economic Development (DEED) sent Rasmussen a determination,

showing her potential benefits. The determination informed her that her base period was 

from April 2012 to March 2013 and that her employer had reported wage information for 

two quarters, October to December 2012 and January to March 2013. The determination 

did not report any information for wages paid after March 2013. It advised Rasmussen 

that she had until August 12, 2013 to appeal the determination and “[i]f the employer or 

wage information listed is not correct,” she should “complete and return the enclosed 

Wage and Employer Correction Sheet before Monday, August 12, 2013.” Rasmussen 

allegedly called DEED for further information on her base period, but she did not appeal 

or return a correction sheet to DEED.

Beginning on August 7, 2013, Rasmussen received weekly unemployment 

benefits for six weeks. In September 2013, she asked to withdraw her benefit account so 

that her wages from April to June 2013 could be included in the calculation of her 

unemployment benefits amount. An administrative clerk at DEED denied her request, 

and Rasmussen appealed. After a brief hearing, a ULJ ruled that, because Rasmussen has 

received unemployment benefits, “the law does not allow her to withdraw” her benefit 

account. Rasmussen requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed.
3

D E C I S I O N

Rasmussen requests reversal of the ULJ’s decision, arguing that she relied on 

erroneous oral advice from DEED regarding her base period. We may reverse or modify 

a ULJ’s decision when it is affected by an error of law. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 

7(d)(4) (2012). We review a ULJ’s legal conclusions de novo. Stagg v. Vintage Place 

Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).

A benefits account may not be withdrawn after any benefits have been paid. 

Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3b(c). Rasmussen received benefits for several weeks before 

requesting withdrawal of her benefit account, so she is barred from withdrawing her 

account.

Rasmussen asserts that she would have delayed her request to establish an 

unemployment-benefits account had she not been misinformed by DEED about her base 

period. We sympathize; it seems unfair if Rasmussen’s actions were misguided by 

DEED. But we are bound by the statutory prohibition on withdrawal of an 

unemployment-benefits account after payments are made, even in cases where such a 

conclusion seems unfair. See Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2012) (“There is no 

equitable or common law denial or allowance of unemployment benefits.”); see also 

State ex rel. Timo v. Juvenile Court, 188 Minn. 125, 128, 246 N.W. 544, 546 (1933) 

(“The legislature is at liberty to ignore logic and perpetrate injustice as long as it does not 

transgress constitutional limits.”). Also, Rasmussen was given an opportunity to correct 

missing or inaccurate information in the materials that DEED used in calculating her 
4

unemployment-benefits amount by returning a written correction sheet, and she did not 

do so. We are therefore unable to grant her relief.

Affirmed.