ILNews

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.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT