To: VECCustomerEscalations4@incontactemail.com
Via: amazonses.com
Date:10/07/2025
From: Thomas D. Coates
Subject: Points of Contention Between VEC Inquiry and Claimant Response

Dear Ms. Monique / VEC Escalation Team,

I am writing in response to your July 31, 2025 correspondence regarding my claim information and the guidance provided for new claim filing. The following points highlight serious factual and procedural discrepancies between VEC’s inquiry and my responses, which require attention and corrective review:

1. Employment End-Date vs. Wage Reporting Conflict

• VEC Statement: Records show active wages reported in Q3, Q4 2024, and Q1 2025.

• Claimant Response: Last physical day worked was June 28, 2024.

• Inference / Contention: Any wages reported after Q2 2024 were not wages for active service; they were disability payments or accounting anomalies. VEC is improperly treating payroll ledger anomalies as evidence of continued employment.

2. Mischaracterization of Disability Payments as Wages

• VEC Statement: Asked if reported wages could be severance or “some other type of pay.”

• Claimant Response: Payments after June 28 were short-term disability benefits, not compensation for services rendered.

• Inference / Contention: Disability pay is not “wages” under unemployment insurance statutes. Misclassifying benefits as employment risks unlawful adjudication.

3. Erroneous Attribution of “Severance”

• VEC Statement: Suggested wages might be severance.

• Claimant Response: Clarified that these payments were disability pay and accounting corrections, not severance.

• Inference / Contention: VEC is speculating beyond employer records, introducing unsupported categories. This undermines the reliability of adjudication based on employer wage submissions.

4. Contradiction with FOIA-Produced VEC Records

• VEC Statement: Treats Cox’s reported wages as valid.

• Claimant Response: Clarified factual end-date and corrected nature of post-June 28 payments.

• Inference / Contention: FOIA records already in VEC’s possession contradict employer submissions. Reliance on unverified employer data while ignoring internal evidence is a record-keeping and adjudication inconsistency.

5. Improper Burden of Proof Placement

• VEC Statement: “Failure to provide the requested information … will result in an appealable determination.”

• Claimant Response: Supplied precise clarifications and supporting documentation.

• Inference / Contention: By statute, the burden to submit accurate quarterly wage data lies with the employer, not the claimant. VEC improperly shifted investigative burden to me despite contradictory evidence in its files.

6. Accounting Errors Admitted vs. VEC Data Integrity

• Claimant Response: Identified small erroneous payments in December 2024 and January 2025 as accounting errors.

• Inference / Contention: These anomalies necessitate reconciliation with payroll extracts and audit logs. VEC’s reliance on raw employer data without verification undermines the validity of adjudication.

Conclusion:
The above points collectively demonstrate that VEC’s latest actions in misrepresenting direct evidence during the adjudication of my benefits claim constitute procedural and evidentiary violations that require immediate investigation. The inconsistencies between employer wage submissions, internal FOIA records, and VEC determinations must be addressed to ensure proper compliance with applicable statutes and adjudication standards.

I request confirmation that these discrepancies are being reviewed by the appropriate supervisory or escalation authority prior to issuance of any new determinations or claim guidance.

Respectfully,
Thomas D. Coates
Claimant – ID 54377566