Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. Board of Review


January 22, 2008


On appeal from a final decision of the Board of Review, Docket No. 127,471.

Per curiam.


Submitted January 7, 2008

Before Judges A. A. Rodríguez and C. S. Fisher.

Colette Thomas (claimant) appeals from the final decision by the Board of Review (Board) upholding the Appeal Tribunal's decision ordering a refund of unemployment benefits. We affirm the decision, but remand to the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance (Division) for a re-computation of the amount of the refund.

These are the salient facts. Claimant was employed full-time as a program manager by Adult Family Health Services. She was separated from that employment in December 2004. Claimant sought and received unemployment benefits effective January 2, 2005 through August 2005.

In April 2005, claimant commenced working part-time as a therapist for Main Street Counseling Service (Main Street), earning $21 per hour. That employment ended the second week in August 2005. On July 1, 2005, claimant was also employed part-time by Senior Care and Activities Center, Inc. (Senior Care), earning $24 per hour for an average of 21.5 hours per week. Her part-time employment at Senior Care lasted until September 6, 2005, when she was hired there full-time.

On August 16, 2006, the Director of the Division issued a demand to claimant to refund benefits totaling $1,275. An investigation by the Division revealed that during some weeks, claimant had under-reported her wages from both part-time employers. It was determined that the under-reporting was neither fraudulent nor intentional. This finding was based on the wage records submitted to the Division by Senior Care and Main Street.

Claimant appealed this demand for a refund to the Appeal Tribunal. At the hearing, claimant testified that she had reported all of her earnings from part-time employment on a biweekly basis. Claimant did not dispute the employers' records. Rather, she agreed with them. However, she maintained that she had accurately reported her wages to the Division. The Appeal Tribunal affirmed the Director's determination holding claimant liable for a refund.

Claimant appealed to the Board. The Board upheld the Appeal Tribunal's decision. However, based on a further review of the employers' records and the possibility that claimant may have over-reported her earnings to the Division for the weeks ending May 28, 2005 through June 25, 2005, and for the week ending July 16, 2005, the Board referred the matter to the Deputy Director "for re-computation." Thus, the Board remanded the matter to the Director for a recalculation of the benefits paid to her for the above weeks, and for a determination of a credit against the refund of $1,275.

Claimant now appeals to us contending:

I do not owe money to unemployment. In fact I am due a reimbursement as monies were taken from me while I was receiving unemployment benefits. I continue to stand by initial statement, I have reported ALL earned income and do not owe anyone anything.

From our review of the record, we conclude that the decision of the Board is supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D); Zielenski v. Bd. of Review, 85 N.J. Super. 46, 54 (App. Div. 1964). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Board, subject to the re-computation of refunds by the Deputy Director. We do not retain jurisdiction.


© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.