HELEN C. TILFORD v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND CLARA MAASS MEDICAL CENTER

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2672-05T22672-05T2

HELEN C. TILFORD,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR, AND CLARA MAASS

MEDICAL CENTER,

Respondents.

 

Submitted November 29, 2006 - Decided December 14, 2006

Before Judges Cuff and Winkelstein.

On appeal from a final decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, 76,567.

Helen C. Tilford, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent, Board of Review (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Geraldine Callahan, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Respondent, Clara Maass Medical Center, did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Helen Tilford, appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review issued on January 13, 2006, affirming a decision of the Appeal Tribunal issued on September 1, 2005, which disqualified her for unemployment compensation benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because she voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to work. We affirm.

Appellant is a registered nurse who had been employed by Clara Maass Medical Center as a concierge for the same-day surgery program. She was employed from November 2000 until she resigned, effective March 25, 2005. As concierge, her job required her to escort patients to the pre-op waiting area when they arrived at the hospital for same-day surgery. Hospital procedures required her to drop off the patients in the pre-op area without a nurse present to tend to the patients. She was not responsible for the patient's care in the pre-op area.

Because appellant believed the patients' safety was compromised by the procedure, and that by participating in the procedure she was compromising her professional ethics, she brought the matter to the attention of her supervisor and the supervisor of same-day surgery. She was told, in a manner that she considered disrespectful, to follow the procedures. As a result, she resigned.

At a hearing before an appeals examiner on August 22, 2005, appellant's supervisor, Linda Dietterich, testified that the program of dropping off patients in the pre-op area had been "going very well." She was not aware of any adverse impact on any of the patients as a result of the practice.

An applicant for unemployment compensation benefits has the burden to prove entitlement to benefits. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 218 (1997). As an appellate court, our role of reviewing a Board of Review's decision is limited we will only reverse the decision if it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656-57 (1999).

Here, having reviewed the facts in light of the applicable law, we conclude that the Board's decision is supported by the substantial credible evidence in the record. Appellant voluntarily quit her job. She left because she was unhappy with the procedure she had to follow, requiring her to drop off patients in the pre-op area. She believed the patients' safety was jeopardized. She did not, however, present any evidence to support her personal beliefs. In fact, the employer's representative testified that no patient's safety has been placed at risk.

Appellant did not like the way the employer's representatives spoke to her. She believed they were disrespectful. Those personal beliefs do not constitute good cause for quitting her job.

On appeal, appellant has also raised a procedural issue. Initially, the agency determined that she was eligible for benefits from May 1, 2005. On May 19, 2005, the agency notified the employer of its decision and the employer appealed. The agency received two identical appeals on June 1, 2005, both postmarked May 31, 2005, and a third appeal on June 2, 2005. A hearing was scheduled before the Appeal Tribunal on June 23, 2005, but the employer's witness was on vacation and the case was dismissed without prejudice; the appeal could be reopened upon the employer's application if it was received within 180 days.

The employer timely requested a new hearing, which was held and which resulted in a denial of benefits. Nonetheless, appellant continued to receive benefits up until November 5, 2005. What is contested here is whether the employer's appeal, which was postmarked May 31, 2005, but received on June 1, 2005, was timely filed. It was.

The initial notice of determination awarding unemployment compensation benefits to appellant was mailed on May 19, 2005. The employer had ten days from that date to file an appeal. N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(c). The notice indicated that May 31, 2005 was the tenth day after the date of the mailing. The filing date of an appeal filed by mail is the postmark date. N.J.A.C. 12:20-4.1(c). The appeal received by the agency on June 1, 2005, was postmarked May 31, 2005, which is the date that the agency considered the appeal to have been filed. We do not find that determination to have been arbitrary or unreasonable.

Affirmed.

 

She has been requested to refund the benefits, but that issue is not before us at this time.

May 31, 2005 was actually the twelfth day after the mailing. But, the tenth day fell on a Sunday, May 29, 2005, and the eleventh day was Memorial day, May 30, 2005.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-2672-05T2

December 14, 2006