Court Opinion

ID: 9945742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 15:09:39.627211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:39.336728
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-1065-22

LAURA WAGNER,

         Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT and J.P.
MORGAN INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT,

     Respondents.
_________________________

                   Argued February 7, 2024 – Decided February 28, 2024

                   Before Judges Accurso and Walcott-Henderson.

                   On appeal from the Board of Review, Division of
                   Unemployment Insurance, Department of Labor and
                   Workforce Development, Docket No. 257891.

                   Laura Wagner, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

                   Eric Alexander Zimmerman, Deputy Attorney
                   General, argued the cause for respondent Board of
                   Review (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General,
            attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney
            General, of counsel; Eric Alexander Zimmerman, on
            the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Laura Wagner appeals from the final decision of the Board of Review

disqualifying her from extended benefits provided under the Coronavirus Aid,

Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 9001 to 9141,

and rendering her liable to refund $6,468 in Pandemic Unemployment

Assistance (PUA) benefits mistakenly paid to her. Wagner contends she "was

always in the window of eligibility to receive the extension of benefits ." We

disagree and affirm.

      The essential facts are undisputed. Wagner was employed by J.P.

Morgan Chase as a project manager from June 30, 2010, to May 10, 2018,

when she was laid off. Wagner filed a claim for unemployment benefits on

May 6, 2018, which established a weekly benefit rate of $681 and a maximum

benefit amount of $17,706. She exhausted those benefits after twenty-six

weeks on November 10, 2018.

      At the time Wagner exhausted her benefits, the Division of

Unemployment Insurance advised her there was no additional federal or State

assistance available through unemployment insurance. The Division, however,

                                                                         A-1065-22
                                       2
further advised that "[i]f, in the future, any additional unemployment benefits

become available, all potentially eligible individuals will be notified." The

Division also suggested Wagner "check for any potential federal or state

extensions of Unemployment Insurance benefits or any updates on the

situation by monitoring the Unemployment Insurance website at the

Department of Labor and Workforce Development."

      Wagner monitored the website as suggested. On April 12, 2020, having

still not found work, Wagner saw the following on the Department of Labor

website "Benefit Extensions" page:

            SCENARIO A: Do these describe you?

            1. On a date after July 8, 2018, I filed for
            unemployment.

            2. I have not worked since the dates in 2018-2020
            when I collected unemployment.

            3. I have exhausted my balance OR my benefit year
            ended on my most recent claim.

            4. I did not receive 13 weeks of PEUC [Pandemic
            Emergency Unemployment Compensation] on any
            claim.

            If these describe you, certify for weekly benefits on
            your [illegible] PEUC will be added to an eligible
            claim automatically.

                                                                           A-1065-22
                                        3
        Believing she qualified for PEUC benefits after the start of the COVID-

19 pandemic under "Scenario A," Wagner filed a claim on April 12, 2020, for

extended benefits online. When she did not receive confirmation of that claim,

she filed a new claim on April 19, 2020, also online. Several days later,

Wagner received from the Department of Labor a document entitled:

"Unemployment Insurance Instructions and Appointment Notice" advising

Wagner she would claim unemployment benefits for the first time on April 29,

2020.

        Wagner claims she did not collect benefits in April because she was

"locked out of [her] account and unable to certify for 3 months." After seeking

the assistance of her local senator, whose "office opened a case on [her] behalf

with their liaison at the Department of Labor and unlocked [her] account,"

Wagner began receiving a weekly benefit of $231 in PUA benefits, which

required either wages in 2019 and 2020 or an offer of employment withdrawn

because of the pandemic. See 15 U.S.C. § 9025(a)(2)(A); 15 U.S.C. §

9025(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(ii). Wagner does not dispute that she was not eligible for

PUA benefits.

        Believing she should have been receiving the same level of benefits she

received in 2018, Wagner again contacted her senator's office, which assisted

                                                                            A-1065-22
                                        4
in setting up a "monetary appointment" in November 2020 to review her

benefits. Shortly thereafter, Wagner received notices from the Department of

Labor advising she was not eligible for the unemployment benefits she had

received since filing in April 2020, and requesting a refund of the total sum of

$6,468. The senator's office advised Wagner she received the notices in error

and should ignore them.

      In March 2021, the Department of Labor mailed Wagner a "Notice of

Benefit Determination Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)" regarding

her April 19, 2020 claim and her request for adjudication to increase the

weekly benefit rate. The letter stated "[y]our claim has been reviewed and

based on the information you provided, you do not qualify for an increase to

your weekly benefit rate." Appellant subsequently obtained a hearing before

the Appeal Tribunal on July 30, 2021, and testified to the facts presented here.

      Following the hearing, the Appeal Tribunal affirmed the Department's

decision that Wagner was not eligible for any pandemic-related extension of

benefits. The Tribunal found Wagner exhausted her benefits on her May 6,

2018 claim on November 10, 2018, and was not entitled to PEUC on her 2018

claim because it was filed prior to July 8, 2018, meaning her benefit year

expired prior to July 1, 2019. The Appeal Tribunal also found, and Wagner

                                                                            A-1065-22
                                        5
does not dispute, that she had not been attached to the labor market since

May 10, 2018.1 The Tribunal found Wagner ineligible for PUA benefits under

the CARES Act because she did not fall into any of the categories necessary to

receive PUA benefits enumerated by the statute. See 15 U.S.C. §

9021(a)(3)(A)(ii). Notwithstanding Wagner's receipt of PUA benefits in good

faith, the Appeal Tribunal found the law unequivocally required Wagner repay

the $6,468 in PUA benefits she received from April 25, 2020 through October

31, 2020. See Fischer v. Board of Review, 123 N.J. Super. 263, 266 (App.

Div. 1973) (holding the claimant was obliged to refund erroneously paid

unemployment benefits, notwithstanding she applied for them in good faith).

       Wagner appeals, claiming the Department of Labor "incorrectly

processed [her] benefit claim as a PUA, instead of the extension of benefits"

for which she applied. She further argues "[t]he Scenario A website posting

does not indicate that [she] needed all 4 bullet points to be eligible for an

extension of benefits," and her receipt of unemployment benefits after July 1,

2018, "clearly placed [her] in the window" for receipt of PEUC benefits.

Finally, she contends that the Department of Labor is seeking a refund in

excess of the unemployment compensation she received by including in its

1
    Wagner advised at oral argument that she has since become reemployed.
                                                                            A-1065-22
                                         6
demand the taxes the State withheld on each payment. We do not agree

Wagner established her entitlement to benefits or that the Department of

Labor's refund calculation is incorrect.

      Our review of administrative agency decisions is limited. In re

Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). The burden of proof in unemployment

compensation proceedings is on the claimant seeking benefits. Makutoff v.

Bd. of Rev., 427 N.J. Super. 218, 223 (App. Div. 2012). The agency's

determination carries a presumption of correctness, and the claimant bears a

substantial burden of persuasion. Gloucester Cnty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civ.

Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.J. 384, 390-91 (1983). "If the Board's factual findings are

supported 'by sufficient credible evidence, [we] are obliged to accept them.'"

Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (quoting Self v. Bd. of Rev., 91

N.J. 453, 459 (1982)). "Unless . . . the agency's action was arbitrary,

capricious, or unreasonable, the agency's ruling should not be disturbed." Ibid.

      Wagner's argument is not with the factfinder, it is with Congress.

Scenario A on the Department of Labor's website was patterned on section

2107 of the CARES Act which allowed states to enter agreements with the

United States Secretary of Labor to provide PEUC benefits to persons who:

            (A) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation
            under the State law or under Federal law with respect

                                                                           A-1065-22
                                           7
            to a benefit year (excluding any benefit year that
            ended before July 1, 2019); (B) have no rights to
            regular compensation with respect to a week under
            such law or any other State unemployment
            compensation law or to compensation under any other
            Federal law; (C) are not receiving compensation with
            respect to such week under the unemployment
            compensation law of Canada; and (D) are able to
            work, available to work, and actively seeking work.

            [15 U.S.C. § 9025(a)(2)(A)-(D).]

      There is no question but that Wagner exhausted her unemployment

benefits in a benefit year that ended before July 1, 2019. Wagner filed for

benefits on May 6, 2018, and her benefit year ended on May 4, 2019, per her

May 2018 claim determination, when no federal or State extended benefits

were available to her. Thus, she is statutorily ineligible for PEUC benefits

under the CARES Act. That she was receiving unemployment compensation

benefits during July through November of 2018 is immaterial because there is

no dispute her benefit year ended on May 4, 2019 — almost two months before

the statutory eligibility date for PEUC benefits established by Congress.

      Wagner's claim that the Department miscalculated the amount she must

refund requires no discussion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The schedule of

overpayments the Department provided her states prominently that:

            [g]arnishment and/or income tax amounts withheld
            were paid to other government agencies under your

                                                                            A-1065-22
                                       8
            name and social security number. We cannot recoup
            this money from the courts or the Internal Revenue
            Service once it has been withheld. You are liable to
            this agency for these amounts. Income tax amounts
            can be returned only to you as part of your federal
            income tax refund.

We find no miscalculation and no error in the demand for repayment under the

version of the statute applicable at the time of decision. 2 Our decision is

without prejudice to any payment plan Wagner may seek to negotiate with the

Department of Labor.

      Affirmed.

2
  The version of N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d) in effect when the Board issued its
decision required the repayment of mistakenly paid unemployment benefits
regardless of whether the error was on the part of the agency. N.J.S.A. 43:21-
16(d) (2017) (amended July 13, 2023). See also Bannan v. Bd. of Rev., 299
N.J. Super. 671, 674 (App. Div. 1997) (finding N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d)
"require[d] the full repayment of unemployment benefits received by an
individual who, for any reason, regardless of good faith, was not actually
entitled to those benefits").
                                                                               A-1065-22
                                        9