GARY G. WEIGHTMAN v. BOARD OF REVIEW and USPS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6058-08T2

GARY G. WEIGHTMAN,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW

and USPS,

Respondents.

________________________________________________

November 9, 2010

Submitted July 20, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges R. B. Coleman and C. L. Miniman.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 221,182.

Gary G. Weightman, appellant pro se.

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant Gary G. Weightman appeals from the decision of the Board of Review upholding the decision of the Appeal Tribunal that found claimant ineligible for Extended Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) benefits. Because the decision of the administrative agency is amply supported by substantial credible evidence, Clowes v. Terminix Intern., Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 587 (1988), we affirm.

In order to establish eligibility for EUC08 benefits, claimant was required to have had twenty weeks of full-time employment during the base year with gross wages earned each week in excess of $143 or, in the alternative, earn total wages equaling forty times his weekly benefit rate of $256, or $10,240, during the base year. The Appeal Tribunal determined that the claimant established only nineteen weeks of employment, and he earned only $8,121 during the base year. In his appellate brief, claimant acknowledges that he "missed the week (19), by one and the dollar amount by less than $2000." Hence, there is no genuine dispute that claimant did not meet the minimum standard for eligibility.

Claimant contends, however, that money he received as accumulated leave and vacation time from the Postal Service during the base year period should be calculated as part of his base year earnings. He points out that he would meet the guideline requirements under EUC08 if the annual leave and additional wages from another valet company other than CCS Parking were considered. The annual leave payment was properly excluded, however, because it was not for wages earned during the claimant's base year.

It is well settled that appellate review of a final decision of an administrative agency is limited. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). "[T]he test is not whether an appellate court would come to the same conclusion if the original determination was its to make, but rather whether the factfinder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Ibid. As we have already noted, we are satisfied that there is substantial credible evidence to support the agency's conclusions. We will not substitute our own conclusions. Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982).

Affirmed.