Paul cited a PA case but the case did not really rule on that issue. This was a very complicated case of claimants who applied for benefits about 7-20 years after certification. They were trying to get claims under old petitions when DOL would not certify the plant under its latest closure. If you have nothing to do and are feeling masochistic read this case. However, you will never feel the amount of pain we went through dealing with hundreds claims in this case only. But it was not the only case. There were several other cases which dealt with almost 3000 claimants at the same time. JP -----Original Message----- From: Sauder, Lisa M. (GC-LI) Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:48 AM To: Pomerantz, Jane C. (GC-LI) Subject: RE: [wiaattorneys] Re: TRA Income Assistance Jane, That cite is to the Mateosky case. I didn't recall that the case ruled on equitable estoppel, so I re-read the decision. Here's what it says: The Claimants also advance an argument of equitable estoppel, citing the Sixth Circuit's opinion in Dole. In Dole, Michigan authorities instructed laid-off General Motors workers to file their TAA claims just before the expiration of their state UI benefits. As a result of that advice, the workers applied for training after the 210-day limitation period, rendering them ineligible for additional TRA. Applying a Michigan Employment Security Commission rule recognizing good cause for late filing of a claim, the court granted the claimants a waiver for good cause and remanded the case. The Dole opinion is distinguishable from the instant case for a number of reasons. Unlike the Claimants in the instant case, the claimants in Dole were applying for benefits with respect to separations that occurred within the applicable certification period. [*904] Second, there is no indication that the claimants in Dole had returned to work for a period of years, resulting in their no longer being adversely affected. Third, in the instant case, a waiver of the 210-day limitation would not entitle the Claimants to additional TRA. Finally, even if the Claimants had applied for training [**16] within the 210-day limitation period, they would not be entitled to additional TRA because they were not entitled to basic TRA. Additional TRA is nothing more than an extension of basic TRA predicated on the claimant's continuing enrollment in training. The eligibility period for additional TRA is the 26-week period following the eligibility period for basic TRA. Based on the eligibility periods determined above for basic TRA, the Claimants' 26-week eligibility periods would have begun to run either on September 26, 1987 or on September 24, 1989 (for the 1985 and 1987 certifications, respectively). So, I still don't think there's a PA Trade Act case on equitable estoppel, that I can recall, anyway. There is a PA UC case supporting equitable estoppel, but that would be different. Lisa M. Sauder Assistant Counsel 10th Floor, Labor & Industry Building Harrisburg, PA 17121 (717) 787-4186 (717) 772-1655 (fax) -----Original Message----- From: Pomerantz, Jane C. (GC-LI) Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:11 AM To: Sauder, Lisa M. (GC-LI) Subject: FW: [wiaattorneys] Re: TRA Income Assistance FYI -----Original Message----- From: wiaattorneys-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wiaattorneys-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mason, Paul Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 4:19 PM To: 'jalbin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' Cc: 'wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: [wiaattorneys] Re: TRA Income Assistance John - There is one Pennsylvania case (695 A.2d 898) and two Ohio cases that held there is no equitable estoppel. We almost had a case that made it to the Appellate Division in New York. _____ From: John Albin [mailto:jalbin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:53 PM To: wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [wiaattorneys] TRA Income Assistance Our Appeal Tribunal recently affirmed a Claim's Deputy's determination that an individual was not eligible for TRA income assistance even though the Deputy conceded that the Department had apparently failed to notify her of her eligibility and the application deadline as we are required to do. The claimant has appealed the Appeal Tribunal decision to District Court. The Claimant is basically arguing that the Department is equitably estopped from denying her benefits because the Department failed to notify her of her eligibility and the deadline for seeking TRA income assistance. The Claimant's attorney suggests that there is a case out of Oregon that supports the claimant's position, although I haven't seen it yet. Are you aware of any cases, whether out of Oregon or any other state involving this sort of issue? Thanks for your help. John H. Albin Agency Legal Counsel Nebraska Workforce Development Department of Labor 550 S. 16th St. P.O. Box 94600 Lincoln, NE 68509-4600 tel. 402-471-9912 fax 402-471-9917