Like many people who received Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA); our client found his benefits denied with a fraud determination. The PUA wanted all of his benefits back along with penalties. We investigated, collected documentation and appealed for him. As a result, the determinations were reversed and nullified. In the end, the fraud determination was eliminated and he did not owe any overpayment.

Our client worked as a school employee, contracted to provider dance lessons. At the end of her contract and employment, she filed for benefits. The school objected, claiming she had a reasonable assurance of employment in fall and was therefore not eligible for benefits. We showed the hearing officer that this was not the case and, as a result, obtained a win for our client.

Our client worked at a bank where, due to an issue with the vault, she was forced with no notice to stay after work until security arrived. After two-and-a-half hours with no one from security arriving, she allegedly made a gesture to a security camera facing her. She then found herself terminated. The hearing officer agreed that, even if inappropriate, the gesture in those circumstances did not warrant discharge without any prior warnings. As a result, her unemployment benefits were approved.

To qualify for weekly unemployment benefits, a person must be available for work. If the start to attend school after separating from their job, ODJFS will determine that they are no longer available for work due to school. Our client, however, attended school while he was working at base period employers. As a result, we showed the hearing officer that for this reason he should continue to be considered available. The hearing officer agreed and we won the hearing.

By investigating the breath tests being used against our client, we discovered that the breathalyzer that was used was not properly maintained and calibrated. Using this evidence, our client avoided second-in-ten OVI charges and the mandatory penalties that would have come with those charges.

After receiving her pandemic unemployment benefits, our client found the PUA system claiming show owed all of her benefits back along with a fraud penalty. We appealed these determinations and quickly obtained decision in her favor - eliminating the overpayment and fraud determinations.

Our client was charged with an OVI after the police initiated a traffic stop for a burnt out headlight and alleged improper turn, completing field sobriety tests, and obtaining a breath test that was over the limit. We aggressively defended against the charges raising issue with the traffic stop, obtaining a dismissal of the OVI charges.

Like many people, our client found his unemployment benefits denied due to a claim that he did not provide sufficient identity information. We represented him through a telephone hearing and won his unemployment benefits for him.

Our client was terminated when he was unable to work due to a medical issue. He found his unemployment benefits in jeopardy for being terminated with just cause and being unable to work. We showed that a termination due to being unable to work due to a bona fide medical issue is a termination without just cause. We further showed that our client received a release to work, though with restrictions, some weeks after. Therefore, he won his hearing by showing the termination was without just cause and that he was able to work.

Our client found her employer challenging her unemployment benefits. They claimed that they terminated her with just cause for failing to follow policies, failing to properly supervise subordinates, and failing to cooperate with an investigation. We showed the hearing officer that the employer lacked proof of every allegation it made and, as a result, the hearing officer concluded there was no just cause for termination. Our client's benefits were approved.

As a general rule, education employees do not receive unemployment compensation through the summer months if they have a reasonable assurance of employment in fall, though they may qualify if they have sufficient non-school employment. Our client worked at a head start program and found herself denied benefits because there was a claim that she had a reasonable assurance. However, we showed the hearing officer that head start programs are considered education employment only when the program is operated by a local board of education and staffed by employees of the board of education. Our client's head start program was operated by a non-profit organization, and as a result we obtained a decision approving her benefits.

Our client, like many, received a fraud determination from the Ohio PUA system demanding repayment of all benefits and assessing penalties. Through timely filing an appeal with required documentation, we obtained a decision eliminating the fraud finding, eliminating all penalties, and eliminating all overpayment demands.

After receiving her pandemic unemployment benefits, our client found herself denied with the PUA claiming that she was overpaid because she did not provide proof of employment or self-employment, or the planned commencement of employment. We helped our client to prepare for the hearing, submitting additional documentation, and we convinced the hearing officer that she had provided the needed documentation. As a result, she won the hearing, was approved for benefits, and had the overpayment eliminated.

After being approved for a temporary leave, our client returned to find her items had been boxed and a new employee in her position. She contacted HR who told her that she could apply for other positions. When she then applied for unemployment benefits, she found herself denied with the employer claiming she resigned. We showed ODJFS the facts and the law and, as a result, an appeal was granted in her favor approving benefits.

After our client was stopped for not having his headlights on, he quickly found himself subjected to field sobriety tests, arrested and providing a urine same that showed positive for alcohol. We raised issues regarding the lack of signs of impairment, the field sobriety tests and the reliability of the urine test result that also showed positive for glucose. When glucose is present, there is the possibility that the sample can ferment and create alcohol. As a result of these challenges, an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges with our client pleading to a non-moving citation instead.

Our client received unemployment benefits only to find months later that ODJFS claimed show owed back months of her benefits due to being unable/unavailable for work. We researched the issue and found that ODJFS based this upon our client having given birth during her claims. However, she was only unable to work for two weeks after, which we confirmed with her medical provider. Through a hearing, we obtained a win - with the hearing officer concluding that she was only unable to work during two weeks and waiving any overpayment for those two weeks.

After our client's car got stuck, he found the police were called, he was arrested, and he was subjected to a urine test. Casual users of marijuana, even if they have a medical card, often find themselves subjected to OVI charges when urine test results come back showing use - even though not use on the day of citation. Through a thorough evaluation of the urine test results and raising issues with the tests, we were able to obtain a complete dismissal of all OVI charges against our client.

When a person is separated from a job because they have a bona fide medical condition that prevents them from working that job, it is a qualifying separation. However, to qualify for benefits every week, a person must be able to perform work. Our client was denied benefits because ODJFS determined that she was not able to work. We showed that, while she was not able to work the job she was separated from, she was able to work other jobs. As a result, we won her appeal for her.

Our client was terminated because he had a chair to sit in during his breaks and lunches. Through a hearing, we showed that employer lacked any evidence that he was using the chair instead of working, but was rather using the chair only during his breaks. As a result, the Hearing Officer found in his favor.

Our client found her employer fighting and appealing her unemployment, claiming they had just cause to terminated her for mistakes done at work. We prevailed at a hearing, showing the hearing officer that the mistakes were minor and the employer failed to follow its progressive discipline policy.

Our client was charged with an OVI after she tested over-the-limit on a breath test. We obtained an agreement to dismiss the charges with her pleading to a non-moving citation instead. This saved her from points to her license, the impact to her auto insurance, from a year-long license suspension and from having to attend the driver's intervention program.

PUA benefits were determined based upon 2019 income. Our client was initially approved for $480 per week and then they changed it to $189 and then back to $480 and then back to $189. Through a hearing, we showed that he was actually eligible for $582 per week. As a result, not only was his overpayment eliminated, but the PUA now must issue him a backpayment.

Our client was charged with an OVI after a traffic stop in the winter during which she agreed to perform field sobriety tests in her socks as opposed to her boots. We fought the charges, filing a suppression motion and scheduling a hearing. We raised issues regarding the reason for the stop, whether there was a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify expanding stop into an OVI investigation, whether the field sobriety tests were performed correctly given the circumstances, and whether the breath test result was reliable and admissible. As a result, we obtained dismissal of all OVI charges.

Our client's employer had a progressive discipline policy that it chose to deviate from when terminating her. Through a hearing, we showed the hearing officer this and that the employer lacked just cause to terminate. The hearing officer agreed, granted our appeal, and approved benefits.

Our client worked for a company that failed on repeated occassions to pay him properly so he resigned. The company asked to hire him back, explaining that it would be under new ownership. When he returned he found that the company was not under new ownership and it continued to make errors on his paycheck. The Hearing Officer agreed with us, "that a reasonable person under Ohio law would quit when they discovered that the Company had lied about ownership, continued a pattern of inaccurately paying hours worked, and had not paid them holiday pay to which they were entitled." As a result, we won his appeal and he was approved for benefits.

Despite being laid off from his job at a school due to cutback and funding issues, our client found himself denied unemployment benefits. We showed the hearing officer that he was eligible and obtained a decision in his favor.

To qualify for unemployment benefits each week claims, a person must meet certain criteria such as being able and available for work. Our client found himself denied for several weeks because ODJFS determined that he was not available for work. Through a hearing, we showed that he was able and available for work. As a result, the overpayment was eliminated and was able to keep his benefits.

Our client was terminated because the employer, without warning, accused her of using an employee discount code for purchasing items for her fiance. Through a hearing, we showed that (a) the employer provided no prior warnings; (b) its rules were laxly enforced; and (c) it lacked evidence to prove that the items were not for her own use, and therefore legitimate use of her discount code. We won her hearing and her benefits were approved.

Our client was charged with an assault after an altercation, during which the police relied entirely on the other person's version of events. By raising several evidentiary issues with the case, we obtained a dismissal of the charges for our client.

After filing for regular unemployment benefits, our client applied for PUA benefits and was approved. Several months later she was denied by a notice stating that she would be in the regular unemployment system. Through a hearing, we showed that she was properly in the PUA system and the overpayment the PUA system was asking for was eliminated as a result.

After our client was terminated, he found his employer fighting his unemployment by throwing a laundry list of allegations against him. Through extensive research and representation at his hearing, we fought against every allegation and won his unemployment.

After our client was stopped by the policy, they immediately suspected that she was impaired despite having a medical condition that could present symptoms that could be confused with impairment. However, she was arrested for an OVI and provided a breath test that was over-the-limit. Through leveraging missing information in the police reports and explaining how the medical condition could have affected the officer's interpretation of events, we obtained a dismissal of the OVI charges.

Our client had an argument with a co-worker, though there was no threatening or harassing behavior. However, he still found himself terminated and subsequently denied unemployment compensation. We showed the hearing officer that the argument did not warrant termination and as a result won his hearing for him.

After receiving PUA unemployment benefits for months, our client found the PUA system demanding repayment for failing to provide sufficient employment verification. Through a hearing, we showed that the employment verification was sufficient and the hearing officer agreed, eliminating the overpayment.

Our client found her PUA unemployment denied because Ohio believed she had made a claim in another state. We showed the hearing officer that the other state's claim was denied, and as a result we obtained a decision approving her for her PUA benefits.

During a conversation about our client being absent from work due to COVID, the topic turned to discussions about racist comments being made by other employees. The supervisor became irate when our client expressed his concern that management was not taking these comments seriously and then, after our client told his supervisor to, "be a man about it," he found himself fired. Through a hearing we showed the reasons for our client's concerns and that his comment to his supervisor did not warrant termination. The hearing officer agreed, approving his benefits.

Our client was charged with an OVI and an over-the-limit test, but through our representation, we obtained a dismissal of the charges.

When our client found her unemployment benefits denied because ODJFS said she did not provide sufficient identity verification, she contacted us for help. We represented her through a hearing and obtained a win for her.

Our client was hired by ODJFS to work as a customer services representative. After she was terminated, and denied unemployment benefits by ODJFS, we represented her through a hearing and obtained a win for her. We showed the Hearing Officer that she was terminated for not meeting a calls quota, but she was never informed of a calls quota when she was hired. As a result, her benefits were approved.

Our client worked a full-time and part-time job. After the full-time job ended, he applied for unemployment benefits but found himself denied as being unavailable for work. It seems the part-time employer claimed it had other hours for him to work that he turned down. Through a hearing, we showed that this was not true. As a result, he was approved for benefits.

Our client was pulled over after a caller made a tip and he found himself ultimately charged with an OVI after providing an over-the-limit test. He, like many, had Great Lakes Christmas Ale, which is a stronger beer. In the end, the OVI was dismissed with a plea to a non-moving violation.

After our client was denied unemployment benefits due to a termination from work, we represented him through a telephone hearing. The hearing officer agreed with us that, "When a claimant is discharged for just cause in violation of an employer's policy the rule must be reasonable, known, and uniformly applied. The violation must also have some connection with work, be substantial and materially affect the employer's interest, and the employee's action indicates negligence or a willful disregard of the rule." We showed that the employer's stated reason for terminating - absenteeism - was not the reason given at termination. Rather, he was told that the company was going in a different direction. The Hearing Officer concluded that the termination was without just cause and approved benefits.

Like many other people, our client received PUA benefits for months only to find his claim denied, and a demand that he repay benefits, because PUA said he did not provide sufficient employment verification. Through a hearing, we obtained a win in his favor.

Our client found her unemployment benefits denied after the employer claimed she refused an offer to return to work after a layoff. Through a telephone hearing, by cross-examining the employer's witnesses, we showed that the employer lacked evidence that it did make an offer to return to work. As a result, her unemployment benefits were approved.

Our client and several of her co-workers performed their duties as they were trained. The employer then changed a rule, without notice, and terminated several of the employees who violated the rule. The hearing officer agreed that the employer lacked just to terminate because the employees performed their jobs in accord with a long standing past practice and, before the employer could discipline them for not following a rule, it first needed to give them notice of the rule. As a result, our clients benefits were approved.

Like many people, our client found himself denied PUA benefits months after receiving them because the PUA system claimed he did not provide sufficient employment verification. We led his appeal and showed the Hearing Officer that his documentation was sufficient, resulting in a win and an elimination of his overpayment.

After our client was terminated for absences due to a bona fide medical reason, she found herself denied unemployment compensation. Through a hearing, we showed that the vast majority of the absences were due to a bona fide medical reason, and as a result, she was not at fault. The Hearing Officer agreed and approved her benefits.

Due to restructuring at the employer, our client found her position eliminated. ODJFS denied her benefits; however, because she was offered two alternative positions. We showed the hearing officer that neither alternative position was suitable because one was two-hours away and the other involved a substantial reduction in pay. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed with us that our client was eligible for benefits.

With no prior warnings about any work performance issues, our client found herself terminated for, "not being a good fit." She applied for unemployment and was denied until we represented her through a hearing and obtained a decision in her favor. The Hearing Officer concluded, after giving credibility to our client's testimony, that the employer lacked just cause to terminate. As a result, her benefits were approved.

After being placed on an performance improvement plan, our client was told that he was being terminated unless he resigned instead. He resigned, but found himself denied unemployment benefits due to the resignation. We showed the hearing officer that the resignation was in lieu of an impending termination, and therefore the question for the hearing officer was not whether he had just cause to resign, but rather whether the employer had just cause to terminated. The hearing officer agreed that they did not, and as a result his benefits were approved.

After receiving benefits for months, the PUA denied our client, claiming he did not provide sufficient employment verification. We represented him through a hearing, prevailed, eliminated his overpayment, and obtained a backpayment for him.

After being stopped for having a license plate light out, our client found herself subjected to field sobriety tests, placed under arrest, given a breath test, and charged with an OVI. As a result of our representation, the OVI charge was dismissed.

Our client was stopped for a marked lanes violation. Rather than simply issuing a citation, the police expanded and prolonged the traffic stop to investigate a suspected OVI based solely on our client's bloodshot eyes. We raised arguments with respect to whether this was sufficient cause to expand and prolong the determination while we also challenge breath test results based on the maintenance and calibration of the breath test machine. As a result, the OVI charges were dismissed.

Our client was denied PUA benefits after the PUA system determined he did not provide sufficient employment verification. Through a hearing, we showed sufficient verification through check stubs, tax returns, W-2s, and other documents. As a result, his benefits were approved and his overpayment was eliminated.

After our client was involved in an auto accident, he found himself arrested and charged with an OVI. He also provided a urine sample to evaluate. The OVI was ultimately dismissed and our client received only a non-moving citation instead.

After receiving PUA benefits for months, our client was denied because the PUA system claimed he did not provide sufficient employment verification. We prevailed, showing a hearing officer sufficient employment verification. As a result, his overpayment was eliminated and his benefits were approved.

School employees are generally not eligible for unemployment through the summers based on their school employment if they have a reasonable assurance of employment in the fall. Our client's contract came to an end. Though the employer told him he may be able to apply for another position in the Fall, it did not give him a reasonable assurance. Thus, the Hearing Officer agreed to approve his benefits through the summer.

Our client received what is called SUB unemployment from her employer. A Supplemental Unemployment Benefit ("SUB") is a plan by an employer that subsidizes unemployment benefits. ODJFS incorrectly determined that this was deductible income. Despite attempts by our client to appeal this determination, ODJFS also determined that she appealed late. Through a hearing, we showed that the SUB unemployment benefits were not deductible, and should not have reduced her weekly unemployment benefit. Further, because State of Ohio Amended Substitution House Bill No. 197 (Am Sub. H.B. No. 197) tolled "any other criminal, civil or administrative time limitation under the Revised Code ... set to expire between March 9, 2020, and July 30, 2020," her July 15 appeal of the May determination was still timely. As a result, she was approved for her unemployment compensation.

After being terminated from her job, our client found her employer raising many issues with unemployment to justify the termination even though they never shared those reasons with her. We showed the Hearing Officer that the employer could not bring up reasons that were not given at the time of termination, that our client had no prior discipline, and the employer failed to provide any witnesses with personal knowledge of the allegations. As a result, our client won her appeal and was approved for benefits.

After paying benefits to our client for months, the PUA issued a determination notice denying her benefits and demanding she pay back the benefits she already received. We represented her through a telephone hearing, obtaining and analyzing her file, verifying documentation was included, and presented legal arguments to the Hearing Officer that the PUA was wrong to deny her. The Hearing Officer agreed, reversing the denial of benefits and eliminating the overpayment.

After being pulled over for having a headlight out, our client found himself being asked to submit to field sobriety tests, arrested, and providing a urine sample. The state, however, failed to provide the urine test results until five days before the trail. After motions to compel and motions to exclude evidence of the late urine test and other evidence, we obtained a dismissal of the OVI. This saved our client from an OVI conviction on his record, six points to his driving record and a year-long minimum license suspension.

As a general rule, if claimant enrolls in school after becoming unemployed, they will be denied benefits for being "unavailable" for work. However, if the claimant was attending school while they were working, the schooling should not disqualify them from benefits. Our client, however, found ODJFS asking for a large overpayment after determining he was unavailable due to attending school. During a hearing, we showed the Hearing Officer that he attended school while he was working, and as a result the Hearing Officer agreed that he was eligible for benefits and eliminated the overpayment.

After experiencing a flat tire, our client found the police arrive to put him through field sobriety tests and have him submit to a breath test that resulted in a high reading. Facing a mandatory minimum of twenty-days of jail for a second-in-ten OVI, he contacted us for help. In addition to arguing his case, we showed that the prior OVI was from another state and Ohio could not show it was an actual DUI conviction. As a result, our client avoided a second-in-ten OVI and any jail time.

Our client received PUA benefits for several months when she received determination notices that (a) denied her benefits for failing to respond to an department inquiry, and (b) deducted from the benefits she received a pension benefit from an employer she worked at several years earlier. The Hearing Officer found in our favor on both points. First, he reasoned that there is no statutory authority for imposing a suspension of benefits for failing to respond to a department inquiry. Second, pension benefits are only deductible if from a base period employer. Our client's base period was 2019, but she last worked at the employer who contributed to the pension several years prior, and therefore was not deductible.

Our client was put on a performance improvement plan that ended in December 2020. Despite successfully completing the plan, she was terminated in February 2021. The employer told her that she could apply for other positions. OJDFS denied her benefits, holding that she was terminated with just cause and turned down an offer of suitable work when she did not apply for other positions. During a hearing, we showed that the employer lacked any just cause to terminate her. Further, the employer's suggestion that she apply for other positions was not an offer of work at all. As a result, she was approved for benefits.

Our client applied for and received PUA benefits for months, only to then receive a determination notice that stated he was overpaid for failing to provide documentation timely. We proceeded through appeals and a telephone hearing, showing the Hearing Officer that he did provide the documentation. As a result, the Hearing Officer found in his favor and eliminated his overpayment.

Ohio's PUA system attempted to deduct our client's pension amount from his weekly benefits. Through a telephone hearing, we showed the hearing officer that a pension should only be deductible if it is received from an employer for whom the claimant worked and received remuneration during their base period. The pension our client received was from an employer he worked for approximately six years prior to applying for benefits, and therefore was not deductible from his weekly benefits.

Our client was denied benefits, after months of receiving them, because the PUA system claimed that he had not provided sufficient employment verification. Through a telephone hearing, we showed that he had in fact provided sufficient documentation and as a result, his overpayment was eliminated and he was approved for benefits.

Our client was absent from work due to bona fide medical reasons. When she returned to work, she properly provided medical documentation, but the employer terminated her for absences. We represented her through a hearing, where the employer attempted to give other excuses for the termination. However, the Hearing Officer agreed with us that the employer terminated her for an absence due to a bona fide medical reason, and this was without just cause.

Our client faced a disqualification of his CDL after being charged with an OVI. Through aggressive representation, we achieved a dismissal of his OVI charges and resolved the case with no license suspension and no loss of his CDL.

After our client was charged with an OVI, we obtained a copy of the police reports and videos that showed very few signs of impairment. We used this evidence to push forward in obtaining a dismissal of the OVI charges.

Our client applied for and was approved for unemployment compensation after his job came to an end due to a lack to work. When his regular benefits ended and he applied for an extension, ODJFS retroactively denied all benefits that were paid to him. Through a Hearing, we were able to show that the initial determination became final, that ODJFS did not have jurisdiction to change a final decision, and as a result his overpayment was eliminated.

Our client was on a leave of absence for a medical reason when his employment came to an end. ODJFS denied his claim for benefits, claiming he was on a voluntary leave of absence. We showed that he was on a leave of absence, but (a) that ended when he was terminated and (b) he was able to work shortly after he was terminated. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed that he was eligible for benefits once released to work.

Our client had a meeting with upper management at his employer where he voiced several concerns about his employment. The parties did not reach an agreement regarding some important issues and, out of despair, our client told management that they may need to start looking for his replacement. The employer considered this as a termination, and as a result, he was denied unemployment benefits. Through a hearing, we showed he did not resign. As a result, his benefits were approved.

Our client applied for unemployment benefits after his hours were reduced. Months later, a determination notice was issued denying benefits, stating that he voluntarily reduced the hours. We showed the Hearing Officer that this was not accurate. Rather, his hours were reduced by the employer. As a result, he won the hearing and eliminated a large overpayment.

Our client carried a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) for work. CDL's are disqualified for one-year after a first-time OVI and for life after a second-time OVI. When our client was charged with an OVI, we worked diligently with the prosecutor and court to obtain a dismissal of the OVI charges as well as getting his administrative license suspension vacated to save his job and CDL.

Our client was charged with an OVI after a traffic stop and refusing to take a breath test. By proceeding with great care, we were able to reach a dismissal of the OVI charge, saving our client from a year-long license suspension and high points to her license

ODJFS denied unemployment compensation to our client, claiming the employer terminated him without just cause due to customer complaints. Through a hearing, we showed that the employer did not follow progressive discipline. Further, complaints are part of the customer service industry and not sufficient proof of misconduct by the employee. The Hearing Officer agreed, reversing the denial of benefits.

Our client was initially denied unemployment compensation after resigning from his job. We showed ODJFS; however, that he only resigned in lieu of an impending discharge. Put simply, the employer told him that he was terminated but gave him the option to sign a resignation letter instead. Because the resignation was in lieu of an impending discharge, the case should have been evaluated for whether the employer had just cause to terminate him, not whether he had just cause to resign. As a result, his unemployment was approved with a backpayment.

Although our client was stopped for speeding and ultimately provided an over-the-limit breath test, we worked his case to the fullest extent possible to obtain an agreement to dismiss the charges with a plea to a non-moving citation instead. As a result, he was saved from points to his license and a year-long license suspension.

School employees typically do not receive unemployment compensation through summer breaks if they have a contract or reasonable assurance of employment at the beginning of the next academic year. Our client was denied benefits through the summer for this reason; however, we showed that he was a 12-month employee and should receive benefits through the summer because he suffered an unanticipated loss of income. The Hearing Officer agreed, approving his benefits.

Our client sent a text message to her supervisor that was arguably unprofessional. However, it was an isolated incident and a minor one. Therefore, the Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked just cause to terminate. As a result, the unemployment hearing was won and our client was approved for unemployment compensation.

Our client was initially approved for unemployment compensation; however, the PUA later denied her benefits requiring repayment of a large overpayment. PUA claimed our client was not unemployed due to COVID. Through a hearing we showed that our client's cleaning business came to a halt upon COVID because clients were not willing to let her into their homes. As a result, we won the hearing and the overpayment was eliminated.

Our client was terminated for sending a message to a co-worker that complained about newly hired employees. Even though the newly hired employees did not see the message or complain about it, and the message simply stated, "These guys are weird," the employer terminated our client. While ODJFS denied her benefits for being terminated with just cause, through a hearing we prevailed by showing this type of discipline was disciplinary overkill. As a result, the Hearing Officer concluded the termination was without just cause and approved benefits.

Our client was terminated after seven years of employment due to an allegation that she did not properly handle calls. Through a telephone hearing, we demonstrated that the employer could not show her actions represented sufficient fault or misconduct to deny her unemployment compensation benefits. As a result, her benefits were approved.

ODJFS denied our client's benefits, erroneously believing the employer's claim that she turned down an offer to return to work. Through a hearing, we showed that the employer lacked any evidence of any communication about an offer to return to work. As a result, the Hearing Officer removed a large overpayment ODJFS claimed our client owed.

When a person receives a severance payment, even as a lump sum, OJDFS will allocate that payment out over a number of weeks as deductible income reducing a person's benefits unless the employer allocates a lump sum severance to one particular week. ODJFS allocated out our client's severance payment, but by working with our client and the employer, we were able to obtain documentation to prevent the allocation. A hearing officer agreed, approving our client's benefits.

To qualify for unemployment compensation, a person must have sufficient qualifying weeks of employment and income during their base period. Our client was denied benefits in part because ODJFS did not count disability payments she received from her employer as income. Through a hearing, we showed that such disability benefits do count as income, and as a result her unemployment benefits were approved.

Our client was charged with an OVI after submitting to both breath and urine tests. Through researching the discovery material from the State, proactive steps and negotiations with the prosecutor, and agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges saving our client from the strict OVI penalties and avoiding any license suspension

Our client quit his job, but upon further discussions with his employer returned to work completing the same job but listed as an independent contractor rather than an employee. When he was laid off from that job, he was disqualified for having originally quit the job. We showed the hearing officer that the work he did as an "independent contractor" should have been classified as employment, and therefore it was sufficient to requalify him for benefits. The Hearing Officer agreed, eliminated a large overpayment and approved him for benefits.

Our client was charged with an OVI, for testing over the limit for THC metabolites, possession of marijuana, paraphernalia and speeding in a school zone. Through researching her case and analyzing the reports, video and testing results, we raised several legal arguments for her that lead to a dismissal of all of these charges, with her instead pleading to a non-moving violation. Her license suspension was also vacated.

Our client was terminated after an allegation that she did not properly assist with other hospital employees that were placing a patient in restraints. Through the hearing, we showed that the employer lacked reliable or credible evidence to support the allegations. As a result, her benefits were approved.

The employer placed our client on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) after alleged performance issues and then it subsequently terminated her. We showed the hearing officer that the employer lacked evidence of further performance issues after the PIP, and as a result she was approved for unemployment benefits.

ODJFS denied benefits to our client after the employer alleged that she turned down additional work hours. Through the hearing, we showed that our client did not receive the offer, which was allegedly sent by email, and as a result her denial was reversed and she was approved for benefits.

Our client suffered from certain medical conditions that impaired his ability to perform his work. After a leave of absence, he resigned because there were no other positions available which conformed to his physical capabilities and no other positions were offered to him. He was able to perform less physical work, but ODJFS denied his claim explaining they believed he did not have just cause to resign. Through a hearing, we showed that he did have just cause to resign as a result of a bona fide medical condition, and as a result he was approved for benefits.

Our client was involved in an altercation at work after which he was terminated and the other employee kept their job. Through a hearing, we showed that our client was not the aggressor in the altercation and, as a result, the hearing officer approved his benefits.

Our client did not file her weekly claims for several weeks, and then she contacted ODJFS and re-opened her claim, having it backdated to the date she stopped filing claims. ODJFS accepted her weekly claims but denied her for not maintaining her registration. The Hearing Officer disagreed, concluding that we were correct - with the re-opened claim approved retroactively, she did meet the registration requirements. As a result, an overpayment was eliminated and an backpayment approved.

Our client was laid off and then offered an entirely different position to return to without sufficient time to consider the offer or discussion regarding what training she would receive for the new position. She turned down the offer and as a result ODJFS denied her benefits claiming show owed a large overpayment. Through a hearing, we showed the hearing officer that the offer was not a suitable one. As a result, the ovepayment was eliminated and she was eligible instead for a large backpayment.

The Ohio PUA system denied our client benefits because it claimed it did not provide sufficient employment and income verification. Through pursuing appeals, submitting documentation and representation through a hearing we prevailed. His overpayment was eliminated and he was approved for a backpayment instead.

Our client was pulled aside by a supervisor who proceeded to use profanity. Our client responded with some of her own profanity, and as a result she was terminated. A hearing officer agreed that, to terminate an employee with just cause for profanity, they should consider the severity of the profanity used; the provocation for the profanity; whether the profanity was isolated or part of a pattern; and whether other employees or customers were present. We showed that, in this case, while the profanity might have been severe, there was provocation, it was an isolated incident, and no other employees or customers were present. As a result, unemployment benefits were approved.