Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 421 / Act 1 of 1936 (Ex. Sess.)
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.33 (2026)

Assignment to administrative law judge; appeals and transferred matters; consolidation of cases; procedure for appeal to Michigan compensation appellate commission.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ACT


Act 1 of 1936 (Ex. Sess.)


421.33 Assignment to administrative law judge; appeals and transferred matters; consolidation of cases; procedure for appeal to Michigan compensation appellate commission.

Sec. 33.

    (1) An appeal from a redetermination issued by the agency in accordance with section 32a or a matter transferred for hearing and decision in accordance with section 32a shall be referred to the Michigan administrative hearing system for assignment to an administrative law judge. If the agency transfers a matter, or an interested party requests a hearing before an administrative law judge on a redetermination, all matters pertinent to the claimant's benefit rights or to the liability of the employing unit under this act shall be referred to the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge shall afford all interested parties a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing and, unless the appeal is withdrawn, the administrative law judge shall decide the rights of the interested parties and shall notify the interested parties of the decision, setting forth the findings of fact upon which the decision is based, together with the reasons for the decision. With respect to an appeal from a denial of redetermination, if the administrative law judge finds that there was good cause for the issuance of a redetermination, the denial shall be a redetermination affirming the determination and the appeal from the denial shall be an appeal from that affirmance. Unless an interested party would be unduly prejudiced, an administrative law judge may consolidate cases involving the same or substantially similar evidence or issues, hear the consolidated cases at the same date and time, create a single record of proceedings, and consider evidence introduced in 1 of those cases in the other cases. If the appellant fails to appear or prosecute the appeal, the administrative law judge may dismiss the proceedings or take other action considered advisable. An administrative law judge may, either upon application for rehearing by an interested party or on his or her own motion, proceed to rehear, affirm, modify, set aside, or reverse a prior decision on the basis of the evidence previously submitted in the case, or on the basis of additional evidence. The application or motion shall be made within 30 days after the date of mailing of the decision. The administrative law judge may, for good cause, reopen and review a prior decision and issue a new decision after the 30-day appeal period has expired. A request for review shall be made within 1 year after the date of mailing of the prior decision. An administrative law judge shall not participate in a case in which he or she has a direct or indirect interest.

    (2) Within 30 days after the mailing of a copy of a decision of the administrative law judge or of a denial of a motion for rehearing, an interested party may file an appeal to the Michigan compensation appellate commission, and unless such an appeal is filed, the decision or denial by the administrative law judge is final.

History: 1936, Ex. Sess., Act 1, Imd. Eff. Dec. 24, 1936 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 324, Imd. Eff. June 22, 1939 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 364, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1941 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 360, Imd. Eff. July 8, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 421.33 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 251, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1951 ;-- Am. 1963, Act 190, Eff. Sept. 6, 1963 ;-- Am. 1965, Act 281, Eff. Sept. 5, 1965 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 231, Imd. Eff. Jan. 3, 1972 ;-- Am. 1975, Act 110, Eff. June 8, 1975 ;-- Am. 1977, Act 52, Imd. Eff. July 5, 1977 ;-- Am. 1977, Act 202, Imd. Eff. Nov. 17, 1977 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 164, Eff. Oct. 1, 1983 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 269, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 2011

Compiler's Notes:

    For the abolishment of the Michigan compensation appellate commission and establishment of the new unemployment insurance appeals commission and the transfer of certain powers and duties of the Michigan compensation appellate commission to the unemployment insurance appeals commission, see E.R.O. No. 2019-3, compiled at MCL 125.1998.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case: Storey v. Meijer, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Storey v. Meijer, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “The court rejected the employee's statutory argument in a footnote, and concluded that § 11(b)(1) refers only to internal determinations.”
Marcellus Wood & Trucking, Inc. v. Michigan Emp. Sec. Comm'n (In Re Marcellus Wood & Trucking, Inc.), 158 B.R. 650 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1993). · cites it 4× “See MESC’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibits F and G; Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 421.33(1). A hearing was held before a referee, at which time representatives of the Debtor presented testimony under oath.”
Sonsearaharay POLK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YELLOW FREIGHT Sys., INC., an Indiana Corp., Defendant-Appellant, 801 F.2d 190 (6th Cir. 1986). “Rather, "a writing prepared, owned, used in the possession of, or retained by” a referee, Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. § 421.33(3), or the review board, Mich.”
State Bar of Mich. v. Galloway, 369 N.W.2d 839 (Mich. 1985). “Commission administrative employees make the initial determinations regarding eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.”
Chrysler Corp. v. Sellers, 307 N.W.2d 708 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “Consequently, claimant argues, his own appeal to the Board of Review was a nullity and should have precluded further review by the board, circuit court or this Court, under MCL 421.33(2); MSA 17.535(2): "An interested party within 20 days after the mailing of a copy of a…”
King v. Calumet & Hecla Corp., 204 N.W.2d 286 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “In that regard, MCLA 421.33; MSA 17.535, being section 33 of the Employment Security Act, provides in pertinent part: "Any interested party within 15 days after the mailing of a copy of a decision of the referee or of a denial of a motion for rehearing may file an appeal…”
Drumright v. Padzieski, 436 F. Supp. 310 (E.D. Mich. 1977). “Plaintiff avers that he received no prior notice of the redetermination of November 22, 1976 which cancelled his benefits and ordered repayment.”
Ackerberg v. Grant Cmty. Hosp., 360 N.W.2d 599 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “Claimant appealed and the matter was heard by a referee pursuant to MCL 421.33; MSA 17.535. The referee awarded claimant benefits.”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 135 N.W.2d 921 (Mich. 1965). · cites it 2× “This is an unemployment compensation case involving multiple claims, for weeks in September and October of 1957, of several employees, consolidated as permitted by CLS 1961, § 421.33 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.535). The appeal here is by claimants from a circuit court order holding…”
In re Old Carco LLC, 505 B.R. 151 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014). “405/1509; eventually, a hearing before an administrative law judge or a person with similar powers, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.33 (1); Ind.Code § 22-4-32-1; 820 III.”
Blom v. Thermotron Corp., 360 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “Claim *52 ant’s former employer, Thermotron Corporation, appealed, and the matter was heard by a referee pursuant to MCL 421.33; MSA 17.535. The referee found that claimant voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to her employer and declared claimant ineligible for…”
In Re Schlossberg, 200 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1972). “The statute provides (MCLA 421.33; MSA 17.535) that no referee shall participate in any case in which he shall have a direct or indirect interest.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.33(1) — 12 cases
Marcellus Wood & Trucking, Inc. v. Michigan Emp. Sec. Comm'n (In Re Marcellus Wood & Trucking, Inc.), 158 B.R. 650 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1993). “See MESC’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibits F and G; Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 421.33(1). A hearing was held before a referee, at which time representatives of the Debtor presented testimony under oath.”
Taylor v. United States Postal Serv., 413 N.W.2d 736 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Frank Lucente (Mich. 2021).
Dep't of Talent & Econ. Dev. v. Michael Herzog (Mich. 2021).
Dock Farish v. Dep't of Talent & Econ. Dev. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.33(2) — 7 cases
Chrysler Corp. v. Sellers, 307 N.W.2d 708 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “Consequently, claimant argues, his own appeal to the Board of Review was a nullity and should have precluded further review by the board, circuit court or this Court, under MCL 421.33(2); MSA 17.535(2): "An interested party within 20 days after the mailing of a copy of a…”
Juan M Quintero v. Lrs Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Juan M Quintero v. Lrs Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Grant Bauserman v. Unemployment Ins. Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Yvette D Cotton v. Express Emp. Professionals (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.33(3) — 3 cases
Storey v. Meijer, Inc., 429 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. 1988). “The court rejected the employee's statutory argument in a footnote, and concluded that § 11(b)(1) refers only to internal determinations.”
Sonsearaharay POLK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YELLOW FREIGHT Sys., INC., an Indiana Corp., Defendant-Appellant, 801 F.2d 190 (6th Cir. 1986). “Rather, "a writing prepared, owned, used in the possession of, or retained by” a referee, Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. § 421.33(3), or the review board, Mich.”
Weiler v. New Century Bank, 423 N.W.2d 664 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.