Castagna v. Bd. of Review

1

LAURA CASTAGNA, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and SNOW OPERATING LLC, Respondents,

No. A-2835-21

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

January 18, 2024

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.

Submitted October 25, 2023

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 252748.

Laura Castagna, appellant pro se.

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General of counsel; Gina Marie Labrecque, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Before Judges Vernoia and Gummer.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Laura Castagna appeals from an April 7, 2022 final decision of the Board of Review. In that decision, the Board affirmed an Appeal Tribunal determination that petitioner was obligated to refund the Division of Unemployment Insurance $13,272 in Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) benefits the Division had paid to petitioner before it learned she had failed to exhaust her right to regular unemployment benefits in New York. Based on our review of the record, petitioner's arguments, and the applicable legal principles, we affirm in part and remand in part for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

I.

On March 27, 2020, Congress enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 9001 to 9141. Under the CARES Act, states were able to enter into agreements with the United States Secretary of Labor to provide PEUC benefits to individuals who:

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

[Id. at § 9025(a)(2)(A)-(D).]

According to the United States Department of Labor, "[a]ll states voluntarily signed an 'Agreement Implementing the Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act' . . . with the Secretary in March 2020 to administer the . . . PEUC program ...." Dep't of Lab., Unemployment Insurance Program Letter UIPL No. 05-24, Application of State Finality Laws Regarding Temporary Unemployment Compensation (UC) Programs under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act 2 (Dec. 29, 2023). New Jersey's Unemployment Compensation Law, N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -24.30, provides:

During an emergency unemployment benefit period, an exhaustee who otherwise continues to meet the eligibility requirements for regular benefits pursuant to the provisions of the "unemployment compensation law," [N.J.S.A.] 43:21-1 [to -24.30], and who is not eligible for any other unemployment benefits, including benefits provided for by any federal law extending benefits beyond those provided for as regular benefits or extended benefits, may receive weekly emergency unemployment benefits.

[N.J.S.A. 43:21-24.27 (emphasis added).]

"Exhaustee "is defined as "an individual who exhausted all of the regular benefits that were available to the individual pursuant to the 'unemployment compensation law,' [N.J.S.A.] 43:21-1 [to -24.30]." N.J.S.A. 43:21-24.26.

II.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, petitioner earned wages in New Jersey and New York. Her New Jersey job ended due to the pandemic before her New York job ended. On March 8, 2020, she filed a claim for regular unemployment benefits in New Jersey. According to petitioner, during a telephone call in April 2020, she informed a New Jersey unemployment insurance representative that she potentially could have an unemployment claim in New York because that employer had not yet shut down. The representative informed her she could file a combined wage claim or could file separately in New York if she lost her job there.^[1]

Petitioner chose not to submit a combined wage claim but to proceed with her claim for benefits regarding the loss of her New Jersey job. In connection with her New Jersey claim, she received regular unemployment benefits for the weeks ending March 14, 2020, through June 27, 2020. Pursuant to a PEUC claim filed as of June 28, 2020, petitioner then received $8,216 in New Jersey PEUC benefits for the weeks ending July 4, 2020, through October 3, 2020. She returned to her New Jersey job from October 4, 2020, to December 31, 2020, and then received $5,056 in New Jersey PEUC benefits for the weeks ending January 2, 2021, through February 20, 2021.

On August 3, 2020, petitioner filed a claim for regular New York unemployment benefits. She received benefits for the period August 3, 2020, through June 13, 2021, in connection with her New York job.

In a notice mailed on April 14, 2021, a deputy of the Director of the New Jersey Division of Unemployment Insurance advised petitioner that pursuant to the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law, she was not eligible for New Jersey PEUC benefits as of June 28, 2020, because she was eligible for unemployment benefits as of that date in New York and had to pursue that claim. The notice also advised her she had to submit in writing any appeal of that determination within seven days after delivery of the notice or ten days after the date of mailing, which would have been, according to the notice, April 26, 2021.

On the same day, the Director of the Division issued a "request for refund of unemployment benefits "totaling $13,272, the amount of PEUC benefits she had received. In that request, the Director advised petitioner she was not eligible for those funds and that "[a]ny money collected improperly must be returned regardless of the reason for the overpayment in accordance with N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d)." The Director stated, if petitioner disagreed with the determination she had an obligation to refund and repay those benefits, she had to file a written appeal within seven calendar days of delivery of the request or ten days of the mailing of the request. The Director also informed petitioner about the right to request a waiver.

N.J.A.C. 12:17-14.2 allows for the waiver of recovery of debt if the debtor is deceased or permanently disabled and no longer able to work, or if the overpayment, as determined by the Director, would be patently contrary to principles of equity. It must be shown that the claimant did not misrepresent or withhold a material fact to obtain benefits, and . . . proof that the recovery of the overpayment would be contrary to the principles of equity should accompany the waiver request.

On June 1, 2021, petitioner appealed the deputy's determination she was not eligible for the PEUC benefits and the Director's determination she had to repay those benefits. During a June 29, 2021 hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, petitioner testified she had not received the deputy's notice but had received the Director's request for a refund when she collected her mail on May 14, 2021, on her return from a trip. According to petitioner, she did not immediately file an appeal of the Director's determination because she was gathering information and determining if the request for the refund was correct.

Petitioner also testified that based on her conversation with the New Jersey unemployment insurance representative, she had understood that because she was not claiming combined wages, she could file a claim for benefits in New York if she lost her job due to the pandemic. When that happened, she filed a claim in New York. Petitioner conceded she "probably did receive New York [benefits] at the same time as [she] was receiving New Jersey [benefits]." She asserted she did not know collecting from both states at the same time was "incorrect" based on her conversation with the New Jersey unemployment representative.

During the hearing, petitioner advised the examiner she did not have the money for the refund "sitting in a box." The examiner told her he understood she was requesting a waiver of the refund, advised her the waiver "doesn't come from me," and referred her to "the initial notice if [she was] trying to request a waiver of . . . the debt." When she asked if making the waiver request was "something [she] should've done before this," the examiner told her she could submit the request after she received the decision on her appeal.

In a June 30, 2021 decision, the Appeal Tribunal dismissed petitioner's appeal of the Director's refund determination because petitioner had not filed it timely under N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1) and had not shown good cause for her late filing. The Tribunal found her appeal of the deputy's determination timely but, citing N.J.S.A. 43:21-24.26 and -24.27, held she was ineligible for PEUC benefits received after June 28, 2020, because she had "not exhaust[ed] all her regular benefits as she was eligible for a regular claim for benefits in [New York] as of [June 28, 2020]." Petitioner appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Board, which affirmed it in an April 7, 2022 decision.

In her merits brief in support of this appeal, petitioner argues she was entitled to the PEUC benefits she received because she ultimately was deemed ineligible for New York unemployment benefits. She also asserts she used all of the PEUC benefit funds in paying her monthly bills. In her reply brief, she concedes she was not eligible for the $8,216 in PEUC benefits "due to a...