Utah Court of Appeals

Can you collect unemployment benefits while applying for disability? Unck v. Department of Workforce Services Explained

2015 UT App 201
No. 20150043-CA
August 13, 2015
Affirmed

Summary

Unck applied for unemployment benefits claiming availability for full-time work but simultaneously applied for Social Security Disability benefits stating he was unable to work since one day after filing his unemployment claim. The Workforce Appeals Board ordered repayment of benefits and imposed a fraud penalty.

Analysis

Background and Facts

Kevin Unck filed for unemployment benefits in October 2013, claiming he was available for full-time work. However, just one day after filing his unemployment claim, he applied for Social Security Disability benefits, stating he was unable to work since October 14, 2013. Unck continued receiving unemployment benefits while maintaining his disability application, relying on advice from a Social Security Administration employee that the applications would not interfere with each other.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: whether Unck was eligible for unemployment benefits while claiming disability, and whether his contradictory statements constituted fraud warranting penalties and benefit repayment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals applied deferential review to the Workforce Appeals Board’s determinations, treating them as mixed questions of fact and law that are more fact-like. The court held that a claimant who applies for disability benefits claiming inability to work is necessarily unavailable for full-time work under Utah Administrative Code R994-403-111c. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the Board’s fraud determination, noting Unck’s contradictory statements about his work capacity. Importantly, the court rejected Unck’s reliance on Social Security Administration advice, emphasizing that inquiries about Utah unemployment benefits should be directed to the Department of Workforce Services, not federal agencies.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear precedent that simultaneous disability and unemployment claims create inherent conflicts under Utah law. Practitioners should advise clients about the risks of pursuing contradictory benefit applications and ensure consistent statements across all proceedings. The court’s deferential standard of review highlights the importance of developing a strong factual record before the administrative agency rather than relying primarily on legal arguments on appeal.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Unck v. Department of Workforce Services

Citation

2015 UT App 201

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20150043-CA

Date Decided

August 13, 2015

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A claimant who applies for Social Security Disability benefits stating inability to work is necessarily unavailable for full-time work and disqualified from unemployment benefits under Utah law.

Standard of Review

Deference – mixed question of fact and law that is more fact-like, with Board’s determinations entitled to deference because appellate court would be in inferior position to review correctness

Practice Tip

When challenging unemployment benefit determinations, focus on developing the factual record rather than legal arguments, as the Board’s fact-like determinations receive significant deference on appeal.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    Monticello Wind Farm v. Public Service Commission

    August 12, 2019

    When a power purchase agreement expressly relies on Commission-approved avoided cost methodology and requires Commission approval, it falls within the Commission’s regulatory framework and is subject to review for compliance with avoided costs, rather than limited public interest review.
    • Administrative Appeals
    • |
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Alpine Orthopaedic v. IHC

    February 2, 2012

    A party claiming intentional interference with economic relations must establish a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, and mere attempted recruitment of an employee without resulting harm is insufficient to support the claim.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Summary Judgment
    • |
    • Tort Law and Negligence
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.