Michigan House Bill HB4373

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/11/23
• Refer: 4/11/23

Caption

Employment security: other; claims for unemployment benefits; require the unemployment agency to process within a certain number of days, and require an administrative law judge to provide certain items to interested parties. Amends secs. 32 & 33 of 1936 (Ex Sess) PA 1 (MCL 421.32 & 421.33) & adds sec. 32g. TIE BAR WITH: HB 4374'23

Impact

The proposed amendments could significantly affect the operational framework of the unemployment agency in Michigan. By establishing clear deadlines for claim processing, the bill seeks to streamline the decision-making process, which could lead to improved claimant satisfaction and reduced backlogs in payment approvals. However, the effectiveness of these changes hinges on the agency's capacity to adapt to the new requirements, particularly during high-demand periods when the volume of claims surges.

Summary

House Bill 4373 amends the Michigan Employment Security Act, primarily targeting the processes involved in the determination of unemployment benefits. The bill mandates that the unemployment agency must complete a claim examination and make determinations about claims within specific timeframes. It stipulates a standard of 15 calendar days for normal claims processing, and 20 calendar days during exigent periods when claims exceed typical volumes. This change aims to enhance the efficiency of the unemployment benefits process and provide quicker results for claimants, ensuring rapid access to necessary financial support.

Contention

Notably, this bill raises potential concerns regarding its impact on thoroughness in claim evaluations. Legislators argue that while expediting the claims process is crucial, it must not compromise the accuracy and fairness of the determinations made by administrative law judges. Critics of the expedited timelines fear that rushing the process may lead to improper denials of claims or inadequate reviews of complex cases, particularly those involving disputed employer contributions or separation reasons. Stakeholder opinions may vary greatly, with some advocating for speedier access to benefits and others emphasizing the need for comprehensive reviews to protect claimant rights.