Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Fletcher v. Board of Review

January 25, 2010

JOAN FLETCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW AND E. MISHAM & SONS, INC., RESPONDENTS.



On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 180,726.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued November 5, 2009

Before Judges Payne and Miniman.

Claimant, Joan Fletcher, was employed as a secretary and office worker by E. Misham & Sons, Inc. on September 8, 1964. She was injured at work in a fall and commenced receiving workers' compensation benefits effective February 10, 2006. Her compensation benefits ended on December 5, 2007.*fn1 However, claimant was not authorized by her physician to return to work until February 14, 2008. While claimant was receiving workers' compensation benefits, in March 2006, Misham closed the Bayonne warehouse where claimant had worked. As a consequence, she had no position to which to return.

On February 24, 2008, claimant filed for unemployment compensation benefits. However, her claim was denied because she did not meet either the base year income requirements of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(c)(1), applicable when the claimant has worked continuously up to the date of employment termination, or the alternative base year provisions of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(c)(3), applicable when a period of disability has preceded the claim for unemployment benefits. Claimant appealed, and her appeal was denied following a hearing by an Appeal Tribunal, which determined:

the claimant filed for unemployment benefits more than two years after filing for Workers' Compensation benefits. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to an Alternative base year for individuals claiming benefits after a period of disability in accordance with N.J.A.C. 12:17-5.6. In addition, the claimant did not establish 20 base weeks nor earn at least $7,200 during the base year of the unemployment claim dated 2/24/08. Therefore, the claim dated 2/24/08 is invalid under N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c) and N.J.A.C. 12:17-5.6.

After the Appeal Tribunal's decision was affirmed by the Board of Review, claimant filed the present appeal from the Board's final administrative decision.

A determination of the present appeal turns on the issue of whether claimant met the alternative base year conditions of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(c)(3), which provides:

With respect to a benefit year commencing on or after June 1, 1990 for an individual who immediately preceding the benefit year was subject to a disability compensable under the provisions of the workers' compensation law . . . "base year" shall mean the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the individual's period of disability, if the period of disability was not longer than two years, if the employment held by the individual immediately preceding the period of disability is no longer available at the conclusion of that period and if the individual files a valid claim for unemployment benefits after the conclusion of that period. For the purposes of this paragraph, "period of disability" means the period from the time at which the individual becomes unable to work because of the compensable disability until the time that the individual becomes able to resume work and continue work on a permanent basis. [Emphasis supplied.]

Pursuant to this provision, the alternative base period for claimant's claim was October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005, when she was in fact working and met the income requirements of the statute. However, claimant's period of disability exceeded the requisite two-year period by four days.*fn2 As a consequence, the State argues that claimant's unemployment compensation claim is statutorily barred.

Claimant, on the other hand, argues that since she collected workers' compensation benefits only from February 10, 2006 to December 5, 2007, she met the statutory requirements, because it reasonably can be inferred that she was "able to resume work and to continue to work on a permanent basis" at that time. Claimant further argues that the governing statute did not require that she file for benefits immediately following the conclusion of her period of disability, citing in that regard our decision in Gilliland v. Board of Review, 298 N.J. Super. 349, 354 (App. Div. 1997), in which we rejected the Board's position that the claimant had to file for unemployment benefits within thirty days of the end of the period of disability, and instead found the claimant's claim timely, although it was filed five months after he was released to return to work.

Claimant bears the burden of proof to establish her right to unemployment benefits. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 218 (1997). As a consequence, she was required to establish to the Board's satisfaction that her period of disability was not longer than two years. N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(c)(3). Claimant failed to meet this burden, testifying at the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal and through her lawyer on appeal to the Board of Review that she was disabled as the result of a fall from February 10, 2006 until February 14, 2008 when her physician authorized claimant's return to work.

We recognize in this regard that claimant's workers' compensation benefits ceased as of December 5, 2007. We surmise that, because plaintiff was judged capable of returning to work, that her workers' compensation benefits were temporary in nature. N.J.S.A. 34:15-12 provides that "compensation shall be paid during the period of [temporary] disability." See also N.J.S.A. 34:15-38, stating that a calculation of the period of temporary disability shall encompass the period from "the day that the employee is first unable to continue at work by reason of the accident" up to "the first working day that the employee is able to resume work and continue permanently ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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