Court Opinion

ID: 9473275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:24:51.746588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:25.490091
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge, with whom HOFFMAN, District Judge, joins,
concurring:
I concur in the opinion of the court solely because the previous decision of this court in Demarinis v. Donovan, 728 F.2d 1266 (9th Cir.1984), compels this result. Were this a case of first impression, I would readily adopt the analysis employed by Judge Farris in his dissent in Demarinis. Id. at 1267-69. Because the Redwood Act was intended to benefit persons “thrown out of work” as a result of the park’s expansion, 124 Cong.Rec. 7799 (March 21,1978), it is illogical to equate the term “layoff” with the term “unemployed,” as petitioner would have us do. Furthermore, section 1332 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code was intended to enable the EDD to correct errors in eligibility determinations made by interviewers, see Miranda v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 36 Cal.App.3d 213, 218-20, 111 Cal.Rptr. 419, 422-23 (1973), rather than to paralyze the agency in its attempts to correct its erroneous interpretations of the law.
Holt was never eligible for benefits under the Redwood Act. “The EDD’s initial determination of eligibility should not give him a vested right to the perpetuation of its error.” Demarinis, 728 F.2d at 1269 (Farris, J., dissenting).