Preview:

a3020-06.opn.html
N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because he left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. Regan does not
challenge the Board's substantive ruling, but only a procedural deficiency, claiming the employer never filed a
proper, timely appeal of the Appeal Tribunal's (Tribunal) decision awarding him benefits. We are not persuaded by
Regan's challenge and affirm. "> Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
The status of this decision is unpublished
Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3020-06T33020-06T3
JOSEPH REGAN,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR and G. NILSON, INC.,
Respondents.
Submitted: April 9, 2008 - Decided:
Before Judges Axelrad and Payne.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 116,133.
Joseph Regan, appellant pro se.
Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A.
Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Brady Montalbano Connaughton,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent G. Nilson, Inc., has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3020-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:42:01 PM]




a3020-06.opn.html
Petitioner Joseph Regan appeals from a final determination of the Board of Review (Board), which held him
disqualified for benefits under 191 N.J. 474, 482 (2007); R & R Mktg., L.L.C. v. Brown-Forman Corp., 158 N.J. 170, 175
(1999); In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999); Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210-11 (1997). The scope of review
of an administrative decision is "whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient
credible evidence present in the record considering the proofs as a whole, with due regard to the opportunity of
the one who heard the witnesses to judge of their credibility." Taylor, supra, 158 N.J. at 656 (internal quotations
omitted).
Applying this highly deferential standard, we find no occasion to interfere with the Board's finding on procedural or
substantive grounds. Though the timing may have been fortuitous, the employer's August 2, 2006 letter was filed
within the ten-day deadline, and satisfied the Board that the matter should be remanded for a contested hearing.
Moreover, as the Board noted, Regan had more than ample opportunity to offer any and all evidence and fully
present his case at the remand hearing on July 25, 2006. Thus, he was not denied due process nor penalized by the
Board's discretionary decision to treat Blackburn's procedurally imperfect letter as an appeal from the Tribunal's July
25 decision.
Although not expressly challenged in this appeal, we are also satisfied the Tribunal's determination, as affirmed by
the Board, disqualifying Regan for unemployment benefits is supported by substantial, credible evidence in the
record. Moreover, the disqualification was properly imposed as a matter of law. See Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192
N.J. Super. 284, 288 (App. Div. 1983) ("Mere dissatisfaction with working conditions which are not shown to be
abnormal or do not affect health, does not constitute good cause for leaving work voluntarily.").
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
6
A-3020-06T3
April 24, 2008
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3020-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:42:01 PM]




a3020-06.opn.html
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3020-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:42:01 PM]

Download a3020-06.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law