Opinion
No. 12–P–948.
2013-03-1
Trevor HALL v. DIRECTOR OF The DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
By the Court (GRAINGER, MEADE & MILKEY, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
This is an appeal from the summary affirmance by a judge of the District Court of a decision of the Division of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) denying benefits to a claimant who resides in Jamaica. We affirm.
The facts are not in dispute. The claimant, a college professor, is a dual citizen of the United States and Jamaica who declares himself a permanent resident of Jamaica. He is regularly recruited to teach in the United States, including at the University of Massachusetts, where he held a position which ended on or about September 29, 2010. He returned to Jamaica on or about October 9, 2010. He challenges the application of G.L. c. 151A, § 25( a ), and § 1616 of the DUA Service Representatives Handbook (2009) (handbook).
Section 1616 of the handbook, entitled “Courtesy Claims,” provides in relevant part:
“(B) Multiple Courtesy Claims Filed Outside of the United States, Its Territories, or Canada.
“ A claimant is allowed to file only one benefit certification while outside of the United States, its territories or possessions, or Canada. The reason for this limitation is that Massachusetts has no reciprocal agreements on the payment of benefits with any foreign country except Canada.
“A claimant would be entitled to benefits for the period covered by the one benefit certification form only if he or she meets the availability requirements of [G.L. c. 151A,] § 24(b). If the claimant signs for additional benefits while out of the country, the claimant must be disqualified citing [G.L. c. 151A,] § 25(a) ” (emphasis added).
General laws chapter 151A, § 25( a ), provides in pertinent part that a claim shall be disallowed “and no benefits paid” for “[a]ny week in which [the claimant] fails without good cause to comply with the registration and filing requirements of the commissioner.” The commissioner has ruled that individuals who are outside the “United States, its territories or possessions,” are limited to filing only one benefit certification. See note 1, supra. Accordingly the benefit certification claim for one week was allowed, and the remaining claims for ensuing weeks were disallowed. The hearing examiner's decision, affirmed by the judge, is in precise compliance with the applicable law and with the commissioner's interpretation of law set forth in the handbook. See LeBeau v. Commissioner of Dept. of Employment & Training, 422 Mass. 533, 537 (1999) (substantial deference given to interpretation of law set forth in department handbook). We are unpersuaded by the claimant's assertions on appeal that the commissioner's requirement of presence in the United States is either beyond, or in contravention of, statutory authority.
For the reasons set forth in the handbook itself and in the judge's memorandum of decision, it is clear that the requirement of presence in the United States is directly linked to the DUA's ability to supervise the compliance of claimants with the law's requirements, and to enforce the underlying purposes of the statutory scheme.
We specifically reject the argument that G.L. c. 151A, § 25( a ), prohibits regulations in aid of enforcement such as the one here at issue.
Judgment affirmed.