Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1283-10T4
04-23-2012
ALFREDO RAY CARRATALA, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW and PRESTIGE MOTORS, INC. (FORMERLY DOCKERY FORD, INC.), Respondents.
Alfredo Ray Carratala, appellant pro se. Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Prestige Motors, Inc., has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Maven and Carchman.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 229,359.
Alfredo Ray Carratala, appellant pro se.
Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent Prestige Motors, Inc., has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Appellant Alfredo Ray Carratala appeals from a final agency decision of the Board of Review (Board), Department of Labor, dismissing his claim for unemployment compensation benefits. In its decision, the Board rejected appellant's administrative appeal of the adverse ruling by the Appeal Tribunal because he failed to file that appeal within the strict time frame prescribed by N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(c) and N.J.A.C. 12:20-4.1(a). We affirm.
On April 13, 2009, the Department of Labor mailed the determination of the deputy claims examiner to appellant notifying him that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b), he was disqualified for unemployment benefits he claimed for the period of February 22, 2009 through April 4, 2009, on the ground that he was discharged for misconduct connected with the workplace.
Appellant filed an appeal of the deputy's determination on May 1, 2009. The Appeal Tribunal conducted a telephone hearing on June 22, 2009, during which time appellant explained that he had not filed earlier because he was looking for work. In a written decision, the Appeal Tribunal denied his appeal. The decision stated, "The appeal is dismissed as it was not filed within the period allowed under N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1), and good cause has not been shown for filing late." Attached to the decision was a notice stating in part that, "IMPORTANT: This decision will become final, unless, within ten (10) days of the date of mailing or notification, a written appeal is filed with the Board of Review, Department of Labor . . . ." The date the Appeal Tribunal's decision was mailed to appellant, July 1, 2009, was clearly indicated on the front page.
By letter postmarked May 12, 2010, appellant filed an appeal of the decision of the Appeal Tribunal with the Board. He indicated that he had received the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, but, due to unsuccessful employment searches and financial challenges, he chose to further his education. His statement gave no reason for filing his appeal beyond the ten-day time period indicated in the notice. The Board issued a written decision on October 2, 2010, dismissing appellant's appeal as untimely filed. This appeal followed.
N.J.S.A. 43:21-6 sets forth the procedure for applying for unemployment benefits and appealing an adverse decision. In relevant part, subsection (c) of that statute provides:
The parties shall be duly notified of [the Appeal] tribunal's decision, together with its reasons therefor, which shall be deemed to be the final decision of the board of review, unless within 10 days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision, further appeal is initiated [to the Board of Review].
The ten-day deadline for filing an appeal is mandatory. Lowden v. Bd. of Review, 78 N.J. Super. 467 (App. Div. 1963); see also Von Ouhl v. Bd. of Review, 254 N.J. Super. 147, 151 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 10 (1992) (decision of Appeal Tribunal is final if appeal is not initiated within ten days). However, in Rivera v. Bd. of Review, 127 N.J. 578, 586 (1992), the Supreme Court held that exceptions to the deadline must be permitted to protect an appellant's right to due process. After Rivera, the Department of Labor promulgated a regulation allowing a good cause exception for late appeals. N.J.A.C. 12:20-3.1(i) provides:
A late appeal shall be considered on its merits if it is determined that the appeal was delayed for good cause. Good cause exists in circumstances where it is shown that:
1. The delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant; or
2. The appellant delayed filing the appeal for circumstances which could not have been reasonably foreseen or prevented.
In this case, appellant has made no attempt to show good cause for delay in filing his appeal. The postmark on appellant's letter to the Board is deemed the date of his filing the appeal. N.J.A.C. 12:20-4.1(c). The record shows clearly the postmark of May 12, 2010, which was ten months beyond the deadline of July 10, 2009. Without a showing of good cause, the Board correctly dismissed appellant's appeal as untimely.
In his submission on this appeal, appellant describes generally the circumstances that resulted in his discharge from employment, his travels across the State of New Jersey seeking employment, and his right to equal protection under the law. Again, he has not addressed the late filing of his appeal to the Board. He has also not shown any error in the reason for denying his claim under the applicable law. Our standard of review considers whether the decision of the Board was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We find no error in the Board's dismissal of appellant's appeal.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(c) was amended in 2010 to enlarge the time for filing an administrative appeal with the Board to twenty days, but only as to decisions made after December 1, 2010. Because the Appeal Tribunal's decision in this case predated December 1, 2010, the amendment to N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(c) is inapplicable.