Jump to content

bobbi916

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thank you! I appreciate your response. I will probably look into this further just for my own gratification because I think their interpretation is wrong. Oh well, it was only for a month of disability...but I still want to know.
  2. I was on partial disability for a medical condition from August 2013 until December 1, 2014. I returned to work part time but did not file a continuing claim. On 12/22/2014, I had surgery on my foot, and I filed a new claim for that, for a duration of one month. This condition was substantially different from the claim filed in August 2013. My second claim was denied as a "continuous claim" based on Unemployment Insurance Code section 2608, which reads: "Disability benefit period, with respect to any individual, means the continuous period of unemployment and disability beginning with the first day with respect to which the individual files a valid claim for unemployment compensation disability benefits. For the purposes of this part, two consecutive periods of disability due to the same or related cause or condition and separated by a period of not more than 14 days shall be considered as one disability benefit period." I had an appeal hearing today. The judge did not rule, but more or less indicated that I would lose the appeal. The EDD rep said that because I was being treated for the first condition (it is chronic, but under control) beyond the period when my claim ended, and that I was being treated by the foot doctor beginning in August 2014, it was an overlapping disability claim. My argument was that I did not make a disability CLAIM (for a different condition) until 22 days after the first claim ended, even though I began seeing my foot doctor in August 2014, before my first claim ended. My reading of 2608 is that the continuous claim definition is based on actual claim for benefits, not uncompensated treatment periods. When I asked the judge this question, all she could tell me was that it was "tricky." Meaning, as far as she would let on, that it is interpreted in a "tricky" (complicated) manner. I still feel my interpretation is correct, that the continuous claim period is just that, a claim, not an uncompensated disability. I know I can't revisit this with the court, I just want to know how others interpret this section. Thanks, please let me know if more info is needed.
  3. My same sex domestic partner and I live in CA and are buying a home together. We are near closing and had been planning to be listed on the deed as joint-tenants, but then learned that it can have very negative tax consequences for same sex couples. From what I have discerned by doing a bit of research it seems that maybe Community Property with Right of Survivorship would be a better option. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you Barbara
×
×
  • Create New...