Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 4141
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28 (2026)

Determination of benefit rights and claims for benefits

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 3, 2023
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 33 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

BENEFITS

(A) FILINGS

Applications for determination of benefit rights and claims for benefits shall be filed with the director of job and family services. Such applications and claims also may be filed with an employee of another state or federal agency charged with the duty of accepting applications and claims for unemployment benefits or with an employee of the unemployment insurance commission of Canada.

When an unemployed individual files an application for determination of benefit rights, the director shall furnish the individual with an explanation of the individual's appeal rights. The explanation shall describe clearly the different levels of appeal and explain where and when each appeal must be filed.

(B) APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF BENEFIT RIGHTS

In filing an application, an individual shall furnish the director with the name and address of the individual's most recent separating employer and the individual's statement of the reason for separation from the employer. The director shall promptly notify the individual's most recent separating employer of the filing and request the reason for the individual's unemployment, unless that notice is not necessary under conditions the director establishes by rule. The director may request from the individual or any employer information necessary for the determination of the individual's right to benefits. The employer shall provide the information requested within ten working days after the request is sent. If an employer fails to provide requested information within ten working days, the director shall provide to the tax commissioner the individual's and employer's names, addresses, taxpayer identification numbers if available, and any additional information required by the tax commissioner. The tax commissioner shall confirm to the director whether the individual was included on the most recent annual return filed by the employer pursuant to division (F) of section 5747.07 of the Revised Code. The tax commissioner shall inform the director if the tax commissioner is unable to provide the requested confirmation. If necessary to ensure prompt determination and payment of benefits, the director shall base the determination on the information that is available.

An individual filing an application for determination of benefit rights shall disclose, at the time of filing, whether or not the individual owes child support obligations.

An individual filing an application for determination of benefit rights shall furnish proof of identity at the time of filing in the manner prescribed by the director.

(C) MASS LAYOFFS

An employer who lays off or separates within any seven-day period fifty or more individuals because of lack of work shall furnish notice to the director of the dates of layoff or separation and the approximate number of individuals being laid off or separated. The notice shall be furnished at least three working days prior to the date of the first day of such layoff or separation. In addition, at the time of the layoff or separation the employer shall furnish to the individual and to the director information necessary to determine the individual's eligibility for unemployment compensation.

(D) DETERMINATION OF BENEFIT RIGHTS

The director shall promptly examine any application for determination of benefit rights. On the basis of the information available to the director under this chapter, the director shall determine whether or not the application is valid, and if valid, the date on which the benefit year shall commence and the weekly benefit amount. The director shall promptly notify the applicant, employers in the applicant's base period, and any other interested parties of the determination and the reasons for it. In addition, the determination issued to the claimant shall include the total amount of benefits payable. The determination issued to each chargeable base period employer shall include the total amount of benefits that may be charged to the employer's account.

(E) CLAIM FOR BENEFITS

The director shall examine the first claim and any additional claim for benefits. On the basis of the information available, the director shall determine whether the claimant's most recent separation and, to the extent necessary, prior separations from work, allow the claimant to qualify for benefits. Written notice of the determination granting or denying benefits shall be sent to the claimant, the most recent separating employer, and any other employer involved in the determination, except that written notice is not required to be sent to the claimant if the reason for separation is lack of work and the claim is allowed.

If the director identifies an eligibility issue, the director shall immediately send notice to the claimant of the issue identified, specify the week or weeks involved, and identify what the claimant must do to address the issue or who the claimant may contact for more information. The claimant has a minimum of five business days after the notice is sent to respond to the information included in the notice, and after the time allowed as determined by the director, the director shall make a determination. The claimant's response may include a request for a fact-finding interview when the eligibility issue is raised by an informant or source other than the claimant, or when the eligibility issue, if determined adversely, disqualifies the claimant for the duration of the claimant's period of unemployment.

When the determination of a continued claim for benefits results in a disallowed claim, the director shall notify the claimant of the disallowance and the reasons for it.

(F) ELIGIBILITY NOTICE

Any base period or subsequent employer of a claimant who has knowledge of specific facts affecting the claimant's right to receive benefits for any week may notify the director in writing of those facts. The director shall prescribe a form for such eligibility notice, but failure to use the form shall not preclude the director's examination of any notice.

To be considered valid, an eligibility notice must: contain in writing, a statement that identifies either a source who has firsthand knowledge of the information or an informant who can identify the source; provide specific and detailed information that may potentially disqualify the claimant; provide the name and address of the source or the informant; and appear to the director to be reliable and credible.

An eligibility notice is timely filed if received or postmarked prior to or within forty-five calendar days after the end of the week with respect to which a claim for benefits is filed by the claimant. An employer who timely files a valid eligibility notice shall be an interested party to the claim for benefits which is the subject of the notice.

The director shall consider the information contained in the eligibility notice, together with other available information. After giving the claimant notice and an opportunity to respond, the director shall make a determination and inform the notifying employer, the claimant, and other interested parties of the determination.

(G) CORRECTED DETERMINATION

If the director finds within the two hundred eight calendar weeks beginning with the Sunday of the week during which an application for benefit rights was filed that a determination made by the director was erroneous due to an error in an employer's report or any typographical or clerical error in the director's determination, or as shown by correct remuneration information received by the director, the director shall issue a corrected determination to all interested parties. The corrected determination shall take precedence over and void the prior determination of the director. The director shall not issue a corrected determination when the commission or a court has jurisdiction with respect to that determination.

(H) EFFECT OF COMMISSION DECISIONS

In making determinations, the director shall follow decisions of the unemployment compensation review commission which have become final with respect to claimants similarly situated.

(I) PROMPT PAYMENTS

If benefits are allowed by the director, a hearing officer, the commission, or a court, the director shall pay benefits promptly, notwithstanding any further appeal, provided that if benefits are denied on appeal, of which the parties have notice and an opportunity to be heard, the director shall withhold payment of benefits pending a decision on any further appeal.

Last updated September 1, 2023 at 10:38 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 228 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Proctor v. Giles, 400 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Proctor v. Giles, 400 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio 1980). · cites it 12× “6(E) to R.C. 4141.28 would serve to expand the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, in direct violation of Civ.”
Sun Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Brennan, 511 N.E.2d 112 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 6× “2d 393 , we held that compliance by an agency with the procedural requirements of R.C. 4141.28(0) was a necessary precondition to the running of the thirty-day appeal period provided for in that statute.”
Bohacek v. Admr., Bureau of Emp. Servs., 458 N.E.2d 408 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1983). · cites it 18× “” Since the amendment to R.C. 4141.28 (O) contains no language indicating the intent of the legislature that this amendment should have retroactive application, we must presume that the legislature intended the amendment to have prospective application only.”
Piazza v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv., 594 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1991). · cites it 7× “A R.C. 4141.28(0) provides the applicable standard of review on appeals from board decisions to the common pleas court: “If the court finds that the decision was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, it shall reverse and vacate such decision or…”
Henize v. Giles, 490 N.E.2d 585 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 5× “R.C. 4141.28(0). 12 Lastly, we can not perceive how this particular claimant’s right to a fair hearing has been denied simply because her employer chose not to retain legal counsel.”
Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos v. Adm'r, 73 Ohio St. 3d 694 (1995). · cites it 2× “Former R.C. 4141.28(0), now renumbered R.C. 4141.”
Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs. v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471 (1977). · cites it 2× “In accord with the provisions of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4141.28 (G) (1973), his request, along with a number of others, was referred on March 7 to the Board of Review.”
State ex rel. Vill. of Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 775 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 3× “04] in that it does not expressly provide for remand to the agency, but instead limits the court’s authority to reversal, vacation, or modification of the agency’s decision.”
State ex rel. Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2002-Ohio-4906, 96 Ohio St. 3d 400. · cites it 3× “04] in that it does not expressly provide for remand to the agency, but instead limits the court’s authority to reversal, vacation, or modification of the agency’s decision.”
Angelkovski v. Buckeye Potato Chips Co., 463 N.E.2d 1280 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983). · cites it 2× “R.C. 4141.28(0) provides, in pertinent part: “* * * If the court finds that the decision was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, it shall reverse and vacate such decision or it may modify such decision and enter final judgment in accordance…”
Kilgore v. Bd. of Review, 206 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1965). · cites it 6× “Section 4141.28 (N), Revised Code (128 Ohio Laws 1308, 1320, 1324), provided: *71 “ * * * If the court finds that the decision was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, it shall reverse and vacate such decision and enter final judgment in…”
Kelly v. Lopeman, 680 F. Supp. 1101 (S.D. Ohio 1987). · cites it 10× “Ohio Rev.Code § 4141.28(0). Because neither of the two factors required for Burford abstention (a complex state regulatory scheme and centralized review in a forum with specialized competence) is present, this Court will not abstain under that branch of the abstention doctrines.”
Show all 228 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(0): 104 cases
Proctor v. Giles, 400 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio 1980). “6(E) to R.C. 4141.28 would serve to expand the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, in direct violation of Civ.”
Sun Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Brennan, 511 N.E.2d 112 (Ohio 1987). “2d 393 , we held that compliance by an agency with the procedural requirements of R.C. 4141.28(0) was a necessary precondition to the running of the thirty-day appeal period provided for in that statute.”
State ex rel. Vill. of Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 775 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio 2002). “04] in that it does not expressly provide for remand to the agency, but instead limits the court’s authority to reversal, vacation, or modification of the agency’s decision.”
Bohacek v. Admr., Bureau of Emp. Servs., 458 N.E.2d 408 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1983). “” Since the amendment to R.C. 4141.28 (O) contains no language indicating the intent of the legislature that this amendment should have retroactive application, we must presume that the legislature intended the amendment to have prospective application only.”
Kelly v. Lopeman, 680 F. Supp. 1101 (S.D. Ohio 1987). “Ohio Rev.Code § 4141.28(0). Because neither of the two factors required for Burford abstention (a complex state regulatory scheme and centralized review in a forum with specialized competence) is present, this Court will not abstain under that branch of the abstention doctrines.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(0)(1): 14 cases
Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos v. Adm'r, 73 Ohio St. 3d 694 (1995). “Former R.C. 4141.28(0), now renumbered R.C. 4141.”
Binger v. Whirlpool Corp., 674 N.E.2d 1232 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1996).
Durgan v. Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs., 674 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1996).
Abate v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 711 N.E.2d 299 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1998).
DiGiannantoni v. Wedgewater Animal Hosp., Inc., 671 N.E.2d 1378 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1996).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(0X1): 2 cases
Binger v. Whirlpool Corp., 674 N.E.2d 1232 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1996).
Aaron v. Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs., 720 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1998).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(B): 6 cases
Knapp v. Defiance Therapeutic Massage & Wellness Ctr., LLC, 2018-Ohio-1890, 112 N.E.3d 361.
In re Appeal of Little Printing Co., 448 N.E.2d 152 (Ohio 1983).
Chenault v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Fam. Servs., 957 N.E.2d 858 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2011).
Hollobaugh v. Pohl Transp., Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00495 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 14, 2022).
Cline v. Defiance Therapeutic Massage & Wellness Ctr., LLC, 2018-Ohio-1891, 111 N.E.3d 1202.
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(C): 1 case
City of Indep. v. Ventura, 681 N.E.2d 1352 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1996).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(C)(2): 1 case
Puterbaugh v. Goodwill Indus. of the Miami Valley, Inc., 2014-Ohio-2208.
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(D): 4 cases
Henize v. Giles, 590 N.E.2d 66 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1990).
Campbell v. Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs., 600 N.E.2d 246 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1991).
Kulik v. Bd. of Review, 471 N.E.2d 188 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1984).
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Turner, 1 Ohio App. Unrep. 118 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1990).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(D)(1): 3 cases
Radcliffe v. Artromick Int'l, Inc., 508 N.E.2d 953 (Ohio 1987).
In re Appeal of Little Printing Co., 448 N.E.2d 152 (Ohio 1983).
Frato v. Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs., 601 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1991).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(D)(1)(a): 2 cases
Carter v. Ohio Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 655 N.E.2d 1373 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1995).
Moorer v. Summit Cnty. Child. Servs. Bd., 633 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1993).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(D)(2): 1 case
Curtis v. Bd. of Review, 466 N.E.2d 192 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1983).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(D)(5): 1 case
Huth v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2012-Ohio-2459.
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(D)(l)(a)(i): 1 case
Aaron v. Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs., 720 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1998).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(E): 2 cases
In re Appeal of Little Printing Co., 448 N.E.2d 152 (Ohio 1983).
In re Claim of Andersen, 563 N.E.2d 336 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1988).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(E)(1): 1 case
In re Appeal of Little Printing Co., 448 N.E.2d 152 (Ohio 1983).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(F): 3 cases
Boyd v. Am. Freight Sys., 555 N.E.2d 666 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1988).
Johnson v. Adm'r, 549 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio 1990).
Ash v. Bd. of Review, 497 N.E.2d 724 (Ohio 1986).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(G): 1 case
Micro Lapping & Grinding Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 486 N.E.2d 225 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1984).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(G)(1): 4 cases
Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co., 493 N.E.2d 959 (Ohio 1986).
Bennett v. Lopeman, 598 F. Supp. 774 (N.D. Ohio 1984).
A.P. Parts Co. v. Adm'r, 542 N.E.2d 684 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1988).
State v. First, Inc., 2 Ohio App. Unrep. 90 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1990).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(G)(2): 1 case
Moriarity v. Elyria United Methodist Home, 621 N.E.2d 576 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1993).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(G)(3): 1 case
In re Appeal of Little Printing Co., 448 N.E.2d 152 (Ohio 1983).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(H): 20 cases
Sun Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Brennan, 511 N.E.2d 112 (Ohio 1987). “2d 393 , we held that compliance by an agency with the procedural requirements of R.C. 4141.28(0) was a necessary precondition to the running of the thirty-day appeal period provided for in that statute.”
Proctor v. Giles, 400 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio 1980). “6(E) to R.C. 4141.28 would serve to expand the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, in direct violation of Civ.”
State v. Morrison, 442 N.E.2d 114 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1982).
Bowman v. Adm'r, 507 N.E.2d 342 (Ohio 1987).
Geroc v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Bd., 525 N.E.2d 501 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1987).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(J): 18 cases
Piazza v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv., 594 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1991). “A R.C. 4141.28(0) provides the applicable standard of review on appeals from board decisions to the common pleas court: “If the court finds that the decision was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, it shall reverse and vacate such decision or…”
Henize v. Giles, 490 N.E.2d 585 (Ohio 1986). “R.C. 4141.28(0). 12 Lastly, we can not perceive how this particular claimant’s right to a fair hearing has been denied simply because her employer chose not to retain legal counsel.”
Angelkovski v. Buckeye Potato Chips Co., 463 N.E.2d 1280 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983). “R.C. 4141.28(0) provides, in pertinent part: “* * * If the court finds that the decision was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, it shall reverse and vacate such decision or it may modify such decision and enter final judgment in accordance…”
Cottrell v. Lopeman, 119 F.R.D. 651 (S.D. Ohio 1987).
Owens v. Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs., 733 N.E.2d 628 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1999).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(J)(2): 2 cases
Corbin v. Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs., 603 N.E.2d 266 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1991).
Hessley v. Giles, 500 N.E.2d 310 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(L): 5 cases
Bennett v. Lopeman, 598 F. Supp. 774 (N.D. Ohio 1984).
Call v. Alexander Coal Co., 457 N.E.2d 356 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983).
Campbell v. Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs., 600 N.E.2d 246 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1991).
Micro Lapping & Grinding Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 486 N.E.2d 225 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1984).
In re Claim of Andersen, 563 N.E.2d 336 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1988).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(N): 3 cases
Guy v. City of Steubenville, 768 N.E.2d 1243 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2002).
Swolsky Enter. v. Halterman, 465 N.E.2d 894 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1983).
Johnson v. Adm'r, 533 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio 1988).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(N)(1): 2 cases
Parrett v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Review Comm'n, 2017-Ohio-2778, 90 N.E.3d 50.
Norgart v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2021-Ohio-812.
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(O): 17 cases
State ex rel. Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2002-Ohio-4906, 96 Ohio St. 3d 400. “04] in that it does not expressly provide for remand to the agency, but instead limits the court’s authority to reversal, vacation, or modification of the agency’s decision.”
Pryor v. Dir., 2016-Ohio-2907, 68 N.E.3d 729.
Henize v. Giles, 590 N.E.2d 66 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1990).
Knight v. Adm'r, 501 N.E.2d 1198 (Ohio 1986).
Luton v. Ohio Unemp. Revision Comm., 2012-Ohio-3963.
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(O)(1): 5 cases
Dikong v. Ohio Supports, Inc., 2013-Ohio-33, 985 N.E.2d 949.
In re Claim of Guy, 764 N.E.2d 1082 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2001).
Lucas Cnty. Auditor v. Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs., 701 N.E.2d 703 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1997).
Lynch v. City of Youngstown, 685 N.E.2d 813 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1996).
Baker v. Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs., 685 N.E.2d 1325 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1996).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28(P): 2 cases
Johnson v. Adm'r, 549 N.E.2d 153 (Ohio 1990).
Johnson v. Adm'r, 533 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio 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.