SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5094-17T4

CLARITZA A. SANDOVAL,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

and SOVEREIGN MEDICAL 

GROUP, LLC,

Respondents.

______________________________

Submitted June 18, 2019 – Decided July 12, 2019 

Before Judges Koblitz and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of 

Labor, Docket No. 148,162.

Claritza Sandoval, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Shareef M. 

Omar, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-5094-17T4

Respondent Sovereign Medical Group, LLC, has not 

filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Claimant Claritza Sandoval appeals from the June 21, 2018 decision of 

the Board of Review (Board) finding her ineligible for unemployment benefits 

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) and N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(e). After a review of 

the contentions raised on appeal in light of the record and applicable principles 

of law, we affirm.

Claimant worked for Sovereign Medical Group, LLC (Sovereign) as an 

office manager from November 1, 2014 through December 15, 2017, when she 

left her job to relocate with her spouse to California, where he had secured a 

new job. 

Claimant submitted a claim for unemployment benefits. The Deputy 

Director of Unemployment Insurance determined that claimant had left work 

voluntarily, disqualifying her for benefits. Following claimant's appeal of the 

determination, a telephonic hearing was conducted before an Appeal Tribunal. 

The appeals examiner noted in her written decision that claimant "left work 

voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work."
3

A-5094-17T4

The Board affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's decision. On appeal, claimant 

contends her leaving work was not voluntary because she had no choice but to 

follow her spouse to his new job in California with their two young children.

We are mindful that our review of administrative agency decisions is 

limited. We will not disturb an agency's action unless it was clearly "arbitrary, 

capricious, or unreasonable." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997).

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) provides that an employee who "has left work 

voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work" is disqualified for 

unemployment compensation benefits. "Under this section, the threshold 

question is whether an applicant for unemployment compensation benefits left 

his job 'voluntarily.'" Lord v. Bd. of Review, 425 N.J. Super. 187, 190-91 (App. 

Div. 2012). An employee has left work "voluntarily" within the meaning of the 

statute "only if 'the decision whether to go or to stay lay at the time with the 

worker alone.'" Id. at 191 (quoting Campbell Soup Co. v. Bd. of Review, 13 

N.J. 431, 435 (1953)). 

N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(e) states that "[a]n individual's separation from 

employment shall be reviewed as a voluntary leaving work issue where the 

separation was for the following reasons including, but not limited to . . . 

[r]elocating to another area to accompany a spouse, a civil union partner or other 
4

A-5094-17T4

relatives." If the applicant leaves voluntarily, she "is eligible for unemployment 

compensation benefits only if that separation was for 'good cause attributable to 

[the] work.'" Lord, 425 N.J. Super. at 191 (quoting N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a)); see 

also Utley v. Bd. of Review, 194 N.J. 534, 544 (2008). Claimant readily 

acknowledges that she would remain working at Sovereign if she wasn't 

obligated to relocate to California with her family. See Fennell v. Bd. of 

Review, 297 N.J. Super. 319, 322 (App. Div. 1997) ("Causes personal to the 

claimant and not attributable to the work come within the disqualification 

language of the statute.").

Claimant's argument, supported by an online article, that she is entitled to 

benefits under "a trailing spouse provision" does not comport with New Jersey 

law.

Affirmed.