GEORGE M. THORN VS. BOARD OF REVIEW(BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)
A-3452-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- George Thorn, a full‑time teacher in 2009–10, accepted a part‑time two‑day‑per‑week teaching contract for 2010–11 at a prorated salary and later applied for unemployment benefits on July 4, 2010.
- Thorn received weekly unemployment payments of $544 from Sept. 4, 2010 through June 25, 2011, while also earning roughly $20,140.90 from part‑time work for the same district during that period.
- Thorn completed his claim by telephone and answered “No” to a yes/no question asking whether he worked during the weeks claimed; he testified he believed his answers were truthful based on claiming nonworking days.
- Bureau investigator found Thorn did not report the part‑time earnings on his telephone certifications; Thorn would have been eligible for partial (smaller) benefits had he disclosed the income.
- The Appeal Tribunal found Thorn received benefits by false or fraudulent representation, ordered repayment of $23,822, and imposed a 25% penalty fine; the Board of Review affirmed. Thorn appealed, arguing his conduct was at most negligent, not fraudulent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thorn) | Defendant's Argument (Board/Bureau) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thorn knowingly or fraudulently misrepresented his employment status when certifying for benefits | Thorn contends he did not intentionally misrepresent; at worst negligent and believed his certifications true | Division argues Thorn answered “No” while working part‑time and failed to disclose material income, qualifying as nondisclosure/misrepresentation | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding of nondisclosure/fraud under the statute |
| Whether Thorn must repay overpaid unemployment benefits | Thorn implies repayment should reflect partial‑benefit entitlement if non‑fraud finding | Division seeks full recovery under N.J.S.A. 43:21‑16(d)(1) for benefits obtained by nondisclosure/fraud | Affirmed: ordered repayment of full $23,822 as statutorily required for nondisclosure/fraud |
| Whether a 25% penalty fine is authorized and appropriate | Thorn argues sanctions are excessive if conduct is not fraudulent | Division relies on statutory authority to impose 25% penalty of fraudulently obtained amount | Affirmed: Board properly imposed 25% fine under N.J.S.A. authority as penalty for fraudulent receipt |
| Whether the administrative decision is reviewable and supported by substantial credible evidence | Thorn urges court should recharacterize conduct as negligence (citing common‑law fraud standards) | Board relies on statutory standard for nondisclosure/fraud and investigator/examiner testimony | Affirmed: appellate review is deferential; Board's decision was supported by substantial credible evidence and not arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161 (discussion of common‑law fraud elements)
- Malady v. Bd. of Review, 76 N.J. 527 (statutory subsection intended to permit penalties for purposeful nondisclosure)
- Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197 (standard of deference to administrative agency decisions)