JOHN D. POLINE v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5502-04T25502-04T2

JOHN D. POLINE,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent.

_____________________________________

 

Submitted February 6, 2006 - Decided February 27, 2006

Before Judges Cuff and Gilroy.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 18,292.

John D. Poline, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen R. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant, John D. Poline, appeals from a final determination of the Board of Review (Board) finding him ineligible for Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) benefits. The question presented involves a matter of statutory construction of Section 208 of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act (Act) of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-147, 116 Stat. 21, as amended and supplemented by the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-1, 117 Stat. 3, and Pub. L. No. 108-26, 117 Stat. 751. We affirm.

The combined undisputed facts and procedural history are as follows. Following his filing of a claim for unemployment compensation benefits on June 15, 2003, claimant collected benefits for the weeks ending June 21, 2003, through December 20, 2003. For the week ending December 27, 2003, claimant collected the remainder of his account, $112. This last payment exhausted his claim for regular unemployment compensation benefits.

On December 29, 2003, claimant filed a claim for TEUC benefits. The claim was denied the same day by the Deputy Director on the sole basis that the TEUC program ended on December 27, 2003. Claimant filed an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) the same date. The Tribunal conducted a hearing on March 10, 2004, and issued a decision on March 16, 2004, determining claimant ineligible for TEUC benefits because claimant had filed for the benefits after the program had expired on December 27, 2003. On March 21, 2004, claimant filed an appeal to the Board. The Board affirmed the Tribunal's decision on April 30, 2004, and claimant appealed to this court. On January 21, 2005, this court granted the Board's motion for remand, and did not retain jurisdiction of the matter.

On remand, the Board reopened the matter, set aside its prior decision, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for additional testimony and a new decision "regarding the Unemployment Insurance Program letter issued by the United States Department of Labor with respect to the ending date of [TEUC], and regarding whether the claimant qualifie[d] for [TEUC]."

On March 15, 2005, the Tribunal conducted a new hearing, after which it affirmed the decision of the Deputy Director, determining that claimant was ineligible for TEUC benefits because the program had terminated prior to claimant filing his claim. The decision of the Tribunal provided in part:

The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, Title II of Public Law 107-147 (TEUC)[,] amended by the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 2003[,] provides in part that the [TEUC] program ended on [December 27, 2003].

This Tribunal carefully considered the claimant's contention he is entitled to TEUC benefits. The summary of Public Law 108-26, which amended the extension program[,] clearly states the last week for which a new TEUC claim can be effective is the week ending [December 27, 2003], except the state of New York which would be [December 28, 2003]. That would mean a [TEUC] claim would have had to be filed [December 21, 2003] since New Jersey is on a Sunday through Saturday reporting cycle.

The claimant did not meet the requirements because he had not exhausted his claim until the deadline date of [December 27, 2003], which would have [given] a date of the TEUC [December 28, 2003]. Since New Jersey pays on a calendar week basis[,] Sunday through Saturday, the [last] possible date for TEUC claim would be [December 21, 2003]. It may be true the claimant exhausted his claim before [December 31, 2003], however, [since] he did not meet the guidelines of the State of New Jersey, the claimant's contention is rejected.

The claimant filed for [TEUC] benefits after [December 27, 2003] when the program ended. Therefore, the claimant is ineligible for any additional [TEUC] benefits in accordance with the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, Title II of Public Law 107-147[,] amended by the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 2003.

Petitioner appealed, and the Board issued its decision on May 20, 2005, affirming the decision of the Tribunal:

The claimant argues that if the regular unemployment insurance of an individual is exhausted after December 31, 2003, no [augmentation] of [TEUC] may occur, but that if the regular unemployment insurance account is exhausted on or before December 31, 2003[,] [augmentation] occurs. The claimant's argument is misapplied[,] and [is] not in accord with the statute.

The statute provides that [TEUC] applies to "weeks of unemployment ending on or before December 31, 2003." Therefore, to establish a week of [TEUC] ending before December 31, 2003, a claim for [TEUC] must be dated December 25, 2003[,] or earlier. Section (b) deals with [TEUC] claims already in existence[,] and this portion of [the] statute does not refer to exhaustion of regular unemployment benefits.

Further, to be eligible for TEUC, a claimant must exhaust all entitlement to regular benefits.

As the claimant . . . did not exhaust regular benefits until December 27, 2003, he cannot establish a claim for [TEUC] until December 28, 2003[,] and with such claim his first week of unemployment under [TEUC] would be the week ending January 3, 2004. This is after the December 31, 2003[,] cutoff date. Hence, he is ineligible for [TEUC].

This reasoning is in accord with the Division's interpretation of the law and with Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 30-02, change 4 issued by the United States Department of Labor, which provides in part:

Summary. Public Law 108-26 amended the TEUC Act of 2002 to provide for an extension of the basic program through the last week ending on or before December 31, 2003, and for a transition period for the continuation of payments to individuals who have TEUC benefit balances as of December 31, 2003, through the last week beginning on or before March 31, 2004. The last week for which a new TEUC claim can be effective is the week ending December 27, 2003 (December 28, 2003[,] for New York). No additional weeks of TEUC are provided by this amendment for individuals who have already exhausted their TEUC eligibility.

On appeal, claimant argues that the Board erroneously construed the statute determining that he was ineligible for TEUC benefits because his account was exhausted on "December 27, 2003," the TEUC Act "augments unemployment accounts that are exhausted by December 31, 2003[,] and extends benefits until April 3, 2004," and therefore, he was eligible for benefits.

Section 208(a) and (b) of the Act, as amended, provide in pertinent part:

IN GENERAL -- EXCEPT as provided in subsection (b), an agreement entered into under this title shall apply to weeks of unemployment--

beginning after the date on which such agreement is entered into; and

ending on or before December 31, 2003.

TRANSITION FOR AMOUNT REMAINING IN ACCOUNT.--

IN GENERAL -- SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPHS (2) AND (3), in the case of an individual who has amounts remaining in an account established under [S]ection 203 as of December 31, 2003, temporary extended unemployment compensation shall continue to be payable to such individual from such amounts for any week beginning after such date for which the individual meets the eligibility requirements of this title.

NO AUGMENTATION AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2003 -- If the account of an individual is exhausted after December 31, 2003, then [S]ection 203(c) shall not apply[,] and such account shall not be augmented under this section, regardless of whether such individual's State is in an extended benefit period. . . .

[(emphasis added).]

Petitioner argues that Section 208(b) is an exception to the general rule in Subsection (a), and that he qualifies under Subsection (b). Petitioner argues that his TEUC account came into existence on December 28, 2003, the day after his regular unemployment benefits were exhausted when he filed his new claim; and therefore, he is entitled to receive benefits under Subsection (b).

The Board counters that a "week" is defined as "the calendar week ending at midnight Saturday," N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(q), and because petitioner exhausted his regular benefits during the week ending December 27, 2003, he could not establish entitlement to another week of benefits before the cutoff date. The next date that he could file a claim for benefits would have been Monday, December 29, 2003. A claim for benefits filed on December 29, 2003, would have been for the week ending on January 3, 2004, which was after the December 31, 2003, cutoff date. The Board contends that because the program was terminated before claimant had established a TEUC account, his claim was correctly denied. The Board asserts that its interpretation is in accordance with the federal guidelines and instructions which specifically provide that "the last week for which a new TEUC claim can be effective is the week ending December 27, 2003."

The judicial role in reviewing decisions of administrative agencies is limited. George Harms Const. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994). "Courts can intervene only in those rare circumstances in which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other State policy." Ibid.

The judicial role is restricted to four inquiries: (1) whether the agency's decision offends the State or Federal Constitution; (2) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies; (3) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (4) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.

[Ibid.]

Accordingly, "[o]ur function is to determine whether the administrative action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable." Burris v. Police Dep't, Tp. of W. Orange, 338 N.J. Super. 493, 496 (App. Div. 2001) (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 580 (1980)). The precise issue is whether the findings of the agency could have been reached on the credible evidence in the record, considering the proofs as a whole. Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). The burden of demonstrating that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable rests upon the party challenging the administrative action. McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002); Barone v. Dep't of Human Servs., 210 N.J. Super. 276, 285 (App. Div. 1986), aff'd, 107 N.J. 355 (1987).

Additionally, "[i]t is settled that '[a]n administrative agency's interpretation of statutes and regulations within its implementing and enforcing responsibility is ordinarily entitled to our deference.'" Wnuck v. New Jersey Div. of Motor Vehicles, 337 N.J. Super. 52, 56 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting In re Appeal by Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 307 N.J. Super. 93, 102 (App. Div. 1997)) (second alteration in original). "Absent arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious action, the agency's determination must be affirmed." Ibid. (citing R & R Mktg., L.L.C. v. Brown-Forman Corp., 158 N.J. 170, 175 (1999)).

"Generally, the wisdom, prudence and good sense of the Legislature in the enactment of law are not questions for the judiciary to resolve." Id. at 57 (citing Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 95 (1968), appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812, 89 S. Ct. 1486, 22 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1969)); see also Burt v. W. Jersey Health Sys., 339 N.J. Super. 296, 309 (App. Div. 2001). Although we must give deference to "an administrative agency charged with interpretation of the law, we are not bound by the agency's legal opinions." Levine v. State, Dep't of Transp., 338 N.J. Super. 28, 32 (App. Div. 2001) (citing G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161, 170 (1999)); see also Mayflower Secs. Co. v. Bureau of Secs., 64 N.J. 85, 93 (1973).

Governed by these standards, we are satisfied that the Board's decision comports with applicable federal and State legislative policies, and is neither arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable. Both the federal and State agencies interpret the statute as requiring the TEUC account to be established and funded on or before December 31, 2003. Because Section 208(a) of the Act limits TEUC benefits to "weeks" of unemployment that end on or before December 31, 2003, and New Jersey defines a "week" for unemployment benefit purposes as ending on the Saturday of the calendar week, we conclude that the Board properly construed the statute. Claimant's account could not be established and funded until the Saturday after he filed his claim, which would have brought him beyond December 31, 2003. Nor does Section 208(b) provide claimant a safe harbor. Subsection 208(b) concerns claims of an individual who "has amounts remaining in an account . . . as of December 31, 2003." (emphasis added). Claimant did not have any funds in his TEUC account as of December 31, 2003.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

11

A-5502-04T2

February 27, 2006