Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 21 Chapter 17
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1347 (2026)

Nondisclosure or misrepresentation; overpayments; waiver

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 001 : GENERAL BENEFITS

(Cite as: 21 V.S.A. § 1347)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Harrington v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 566 A.2d 988 (Vt. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harrington v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 566 A.2d 988 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 6× “He did not contest this determination and, on request of the Department, repaid the benefits under 21 V.S.A. § 1347(a). At some point thereafter the Department also found that claimant intentionally misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact and, as a result, the…”
In Re Prouty, 310 A.2d 12 (Vt. 1973). · cites it 5× “Without such evidence appearing in the record, the conclusion that the appellant must repay benefits pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 1347 (a) is not supported by the evidence and cannot stand.”
Butson v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 2006 VT 10 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 5× “Butson to reduce the repayment obligation created by 21 V.S.A. § 1347(b). We affirm. ¶2. Claimant received unemployment compensation benefits for the weeks ending April 20, 2002 through January 4, 2003, totaling $8,440.”
Lincoln v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 592 A.2d 885 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 2× “See 21 V.S.A. § 1347(a), (b). Rule 16(L) of the rules of the Vermont Employment Security Board allows additional evidence to be presented to the referee only where "the parties are given an opportunity of examining, cross examining, and refuting such evidence.”
Trombley v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 503 A.2d 537 (Vt. 1985). · cites it 2× “” Appellant contends that this section coupled with 21 V.S.A. § 1347(a), which provides that “any person who by nondisclosure or misrepresentation by him, or by another, of a material fact .”
In Re Potvin, 313 A.2d 25 (Vt. 1973). “As there stated, claimants are not liable to repay benefits pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 1347 (a) where the record contains no evidence of nondisclosure or misrepresentation.”
Seymour v. Vermont Dep't of Emp. Sec., 340 A.2d 96 (Vt. 1975). · cites it 3× “Claimant based his appeal from the decision made by the Chief Referee to the Employment Security Board on the fact that, in the absence of a finding that the acts of the claimant were intentional and fraudulent, the penalty contained in 21 V.S.A. § 1347 (d) was inapplicable. He…”
Elliott v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 409 A.2d 563 (Vt. 1979). “In each appeal the determination of the investigator was sustained. We affirm the decision of the Board.”
Gutches v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 450 A.2d 1146 (Vt. 1982). “21 V.S.A. § 1347. Claimant, after having been unemployed for approximately five months, was referred to a job opening at AAMCO Transmissions in Rutland, Vermont.”
Tracey v. Gaboriault, 691 A.2d 1056 (Vt. 1997). “See 21 V.S.A. § 1347 (any person who receives remuneration in wages for period in which unemployment benefits were received is liable for amount of overpaid benefits).”
Call v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 411 A.2d 1336 (Vt. 1980). “§ 1347(a), the Department has the authority to require repayment where a claimant has failed to accept suitable employment or has received benefits through nondisclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact. Since we have already held that the claimants did not fail to accept…”
Katrina Dugan v. Dep't of Labor (Vt. 2023). · cites it 2× “The statute requires claimants to repay benefits they received to which they were not entitled when receipt was based on nondisclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact, regardless of whether the misrepresentation or nondisclosure was intentional.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1347(a) — 8 cases
In Re Prouty, 310 A.2d 12 (Vt. 1973). “Without such evidence appearing in the record, the conclusion that the appellant must repay benefits pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 1347 (a) is not supported by the evidence and cannot stand.”
Lincoln v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 592 A.2d 885 (Vt. 1991). “See 21 V.S.A. § 1347(a), (b). Rule 16(L) of the rules of the Vermont Employment Security Board allows additional evidence to be presented to the referee only where "the parties are given an opportunity of examining, cross examining, and refuting such evidence.”
Harrington v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 566 A.2d 988 (Vt. 1989). “He did not contest this determination and, on request of the Department, repaid the benefits under 21 V.S.A. § 1347(a). At some point thereafter the Department also found that claimant intentionally misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact and, as a result, the…”
Trombley v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 503 A.2d 537 (Vt. 1985). “” Appellant contends that this section coupled with 21 V.S.A. § 1347(a), which provides that “any person who by nondisclosure or misrepresentation by him, or by another, of a material fact .”
Call v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 411 A.2d 1336 (Vt. 1980). “§ 1347(a), the Department has the authority to require repayment where a claimant has failed to accept suitable employment or has received benefits through nondisclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact. Since we have already held that the claimants did not fail to accept…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1347(b) — 2 cases
Butson v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 2006 VT 10 (Vt. 2006). “Butson to reduce the repayment obligation created by 21 V.S.A. § 1347(b). We affirm. ¶2. Claimant received unemployment compensation benefits for the weeks ending April 20, 2002 through January 4, 2003, totaling $8,440.”
Christopher Belling v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, State of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1347(d) — 1 case
Seymour v. Vermont Dep't of Emp. Sec., 340 A.2d 96 (Vt. 1975). “Claimant based his appeal from the decision made by the Chief Referee to the Employment Security Board on the fact that, in the absence of a finding that the acts of the claimant were intentional and fraudulent, the penalty contained in 21 V.S.A. § 1347 (d) was inapplicable. He…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1347(e) — 2 cases
Harrington v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 566 A.2d 988 (Vt. 1989). “He did not contest this determination and, on request of the Department, repaid the benefits under 21 V.S.A. § 1347(a). At some point thereafter the Department also found that claimant intentionally misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact and, as a result, the…”
Elliott v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 409 A.2d 563 (Vt. 1979). “In each appeal the determination of the investigator was sustained. We affirm the decision of the Board.”
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.