Judges uphold penalties against man for falsifying unemployment benefit documents

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There is sufficient evidence to support the decision that a man must pay back unemployment benefits he used while working and that the man falsified information in order to receive those benefits, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.

In Shawn Telligman v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Indiana Department of Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Claims Adjudication, 93A02-1304-EX-303, Shawn Telligman appealed the decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that he lied about his employment status in order to obtain unemployment benefits. Telligman submitted his first claim for benefits in October 2009; subsequent claims were filed in May 2010 and October 2010 by Telligman’s then-wife, to whom he shared his user ID and password. His now ex-wife had access to the debit card that contained the benefits except for the period when she was incarcerated.  

An administrative law judge concluded Telligman knowingly failed to disclose that he was working during the time he applied for the benefits or falsified information in order to obtain the benefits. Penalties were assessed against Telligman for the three instances – 25 percent on the first claim; 50 percent for the second claim; and 100 percent for the third claim made.

Telligman appealed, wanting to introduce additional evidence to show that his wife controlled the card and he didn’t know she continued to submit claims. The COA rejected his argument that the May 2010 and October 2010 claims should be treated as one instance instead of two under I.C. 22-4-13-1.1. “Instance” under the statute means each time a new claim for benefits is opened.

The COA affirmed the findings, noting that Telligman was placed on notice when he filed his claim that he was responsible for submitting accurate information and reporting any other wages earned. The user agreement to apply for the benefits also warned to keep user names and passwords confidential.

The judges also pointed out the additional information Telligman wanted to present to the board was available prior to the hearing before the ALJ and there’s no telling if the board would have accepted and credited the evidence in the same way Telligman does.  


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?