Messick v. Board of Review, 21 A.3d 631

Messick sought unemployment benefits and was disqualified for leaving work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work; Board of Review affirmed.
Administrative history: Deputy denied; Appeal Tribunal found no disqualification; Board remanded after employer showed good cause due to scheduling conflict; new hearing conducted; Appeal Tribunal again found no disqualification.
Incident: On Oct. 29, 2008, claimant alleges she was kicked by the assistant director of nursing while handling a medical cart, causing injury and medical leave.
Post-leave, claimant resigned on Dec. 2, 2008 after an investigation letter denied her harassment allegations; employer later questioned ongoing health need for light duty and requested no discipline against the assistant director.
Board of Review found claimant left for non-work-related reasons and lacked medical documentation supporting light duty; concluded resignation was not for good cause attributable to work.
Appellate Division, applying substantial evidence review with de novo internal agency findings, affirmed the Board’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Board properly apply the good-cause standard to Messick's resignation?	Messick argues she left for work-related harassment/injury constituting good cause.	Board properly found no good cause due to lack of medical support and because resignation was for non-work reasons.	Board's finding supported by substantial evidence.
Were credibility determinations appropriately weighed by the Board on de novo review?	Messick asserts perceived credibility and harassment evidence support good cause.	Board may reassess credibility under de novo review and adopt its own credibility findings.	Board's credibility determinations upheld.
Did the Board err in requiring medical evidence for light-duty claims?	Messick contends medical causation and need for light duty were evident from injury.	Claimant failed to furnish medical evidence supporting light duty or ongoing disability.	Board's lack-of-medical-evidence finding stands.
Is de novo review by the Board appropriate in unemployment proceedings without APA constraints?	Messick argues procedural constraints require deferential treatment of Tribunal findings.	Board has plenary de novo review authority within unemployment framework per regulations and case law.	Yes, de novo review permitted; Board's findings affirmed under substantial evidence standard.

Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J. 197 (1997) (deference to agency fact-finding when supported by credible evidence)
Charatan v. Board of Review, 200 N.J. Super. 74 (App. Div. 1985) (standard for administrative review of unemployment decisions)
Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500 (1992) (agency expertise and fact-finding deference)
Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589 (1965) (material weight of agency findings in review)
Doering v. Board of Review, 203 N.J. Super. 241 (App. Div. 1985) (procedural and evidentiary standards in unemployment cases)
In re Provision of Basic Generation Serv. for Period Beginning June 1, 2008, 205 N.J. 339 (2011) (APA applicability and agency procedures in utility proceedings)
Horn (Unemployed-Employed Council of N.J., Inc.) v. Horn, 85 N.J. 646 (1981) (unemployment hearing procedures and deference to agency findings)
Krauss v. A. & M. Karagheusian, Inc., 13 N.J. 447 (1953) (good-cause analysis in leaving employment)
Condo v. Board of Review, 158 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div. 1978) (limiting factors in good-cause determinations)
Associated Utility Services, Inc. v. Board of Review, 131 N.J. Super. 584 (App. Div. 1974) (evidence standards in unemployment appeal decisions)