MILDRED A. WEBSTER 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0

MILDRED A. WEBSTER,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR, and TRI-COUNTY COMMUNITY

ACTION AGENCY, INC.,

Respondents.

_______________________________________

June 18, 2014

Submitted May 19, 2014 - Decided

Before Judges Kennedy and Guadagno.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 361,157.

Mildred A. Webster, appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review, Department of Labor (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher M. Kurek, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Howard D. Melnicove, attorney for respondent Tri-County Community Action Agency, Inc., joins in the brief of respondent Board of Review, Department of Labor.

PER CURIAM

Mildred A. Webster appeals from a final determination of the Board of Review dated January 4, 2013,1 denying her request to reopen the record of the decision of September 27, 2012, finding her ineligible for extended unemployment compensation (EUC) benefits pursuant to the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 (EUCA).2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The relevant facts are undisputed. Webster filed a claim for unemployment benefits in April 2007 (the 2007 claim). She collected a weekly benefit of $347 for twenty-six weeks, from April 21, 2007, through October 6, 2007. After exhausting her regular benefits, Webster received EUC benefits on the 2007 claim of $347 per week for thirteen weeks, from July 19, 2008, through October 4, 2008. Webster then received EUC Tier I benefits on the 2007 claim of $347 per week for seven weeks, from November 29, 2008 through January 24, 2009.

Webster then began receiving Tier II benefits on the 2007 claim of $347 per week for thirteen weeks, from February 7, 2009, through October 24, 2009.

Webster established a new claim for benefits on December 5, 2010 (the 2010 claim). She received $196 per week for twenty-six weeks, from December 18, 2010, through August 20, 2011. After exhausting her regular benefits on the 2010 claim, Webster began receiving EUC benefits on that claim. Webster established a third claim on December 4, 2011.

In November 2011, Webster applied for EUC benefits under the 2007 claim and was informed that she had exhausted her benefits under that claim. Webster appealed and the Appeal Tribunal held a hearing but Webster withdrew her appeal and attempted to appeal directly to the Board of Review. The Board remanded, and, after a second hearing, the Appeal Tribunal determined that Webster was ineligible for extended benefits on the 2007 claim. The Board affirmed.

On appeal, Webster claims she was entitled to extended benefits and alleges fraud on the part of the local claims deputy based on her disagreement with the deputy's calculations.

Our review here is limited. The final decision of an administrative agency may not be disturbed on appeal unless it has been shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We can only intervene "'in those rare circumstances in which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other State policy.'" Id. at 210 (quoting George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994)). Therefore, our review of a decision of an administrative agency is confined to the following 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.

[Id. at 211 (quoting Harms Constr., supra, 137 N.J. at 27).]

The EUCA provides benefits to claimants whose rights to regular unemployment benefits under state or federal law are exhausted. 4001(b)(1), 122 Stat. at 2353. EUC benefits are only payable to claimants who "have no rights to regular compensation or extended compensation . . . under . . . any other State . . . or . . . Federal law . . . ." 4001(b)(2), 122 Stat. at 2353. As Webster was eligible for subsequent benefits prior to exhausting her extended benefits on the 2007 claim, she cannot revert and receive extended benefits on that claim.

The gist of Webster's claim before the Appeal Tribunal and on appeal is that her calculations of benefits received differ from the figures maintained by the New Jersey Department of Labor. Because of this disagreement, Webster accused the deputy who initially denied her claim of "fraud." Webster provides no proof that the payment summaries reflecting benefits received by her are inaccurate and her claim of fraud finds no support in the record.

We are satisfied the Board's decision is supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record. We therefore find no basis to disturb the agency's determination.

Affirmed.

1 Although Webster's notice of appeal indicates that she is only appealing the January 4, 2013 decision of the Board denying her request to reopen the decision, and makes no mention of the decision of September 27, 2012, finding her ineligible for extended benefits, we view the two orders together as comprising the "judgment, decision, action . . . appealed from[.]" See R. 2:5-1(f)(3)(A).

2 Pub. L. No. 110-252, Title IV, 122 Stat. 2323, 2353-57 (codified as a note to and amended at 26 U.S.C.A. 3304).