ROBERT J. CAMPOS v. V. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND SCAPA NORTH AMERICA, INC.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3828-06T13828-06T1

ROBERT J. CAMPOS,

Appellant,

V.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR AND SCAPA NORTH AMERICA,

INC.

Respondent.

______________________________

 

Submitted February 25, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges S.L. Reisner and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 132,536.

Robert J. Campos, appellant, pro se.

Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for

respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant Robert J. Campos appeals from a February 5, 2007 decision of the Board of Review rejecting his unemployment compensation appeal as untimely. Because we conclude that the Board's decision is supported by substantial credible evidence and correctly applies the law, we affirm. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We add the following comments.

Claimant was employed as a machine operator at Scapa North America, Inc. He left the job on August 10, 2006, and filed a claim for unemployment benefits, which was denied. At his appeal hearing, he contended that he resigned due to physical difficulties attributable to the work. In a written decision, the appeals examiner rejected the claim, due to lack of medical proof. The decision, which was mailed on December 13, 2006, notified claimant that he had ten days to file a further appeal with the Board, as required by N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(c).

Claimant mailed his appeal letter, dated January 5, 2007, from Georgia on January 6, 2007. Claimant's letter to the Board stated that he received the appeals examiner's decision on December 26. However, even deeming that to be good cause to extend the ten-day time limit, see N.J.A.C. 12:20-4.1(h), his appeal letter was still postmarked one day late. Claimant's appellate brief does not address the timeliness of his appeal to the Board, and we find no error in the Board's decision to dismiss his appeal as untimely.

However, even if we consider the merits of claimant's appeal, we find no basis to disturb the conclusion of the appeals examiner. Having read the hearing transcript, we conclude that the record supports the examiner's decision that claimant left work in order to move to a better climate and for other personal reasons. He presented no proof that he left his job due to a medical condition attributable to the work. Claimant was properly denied benefits for voluntarily leaving his job without good cause attributable to the work. See N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3828-06T1

March 10, 2008