THOMAS J. DEGRAZIA VS. BOARD OF REVIEWÂ (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCEDEVELOPMENT)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3867-15T1
THOMAS J. DEGRAZIA,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
and PRINCETON TECTONICS,
Respondents.
___________________________________
Submitted November 13, 2017 – Decided November 28, 2017
Before Judges Sabatino and Ostrer.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department
of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No.
074866.
Thomas DeGrazia, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent Board of Review
(Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Robert M. Strang, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent Princeton Tectonics has not filed
a brief.
PER CURIAM
Thomas J. DeGrazia appeals from the decision of the Board of
Review, denying him unemployment benefits because he left his job
voluntarily, without good cause attributable to work. We affirm.
On September 27, 2015, DeGrazia quit his job as a shipping
manager for Princeton Tectonics after over fourteen years of
employment. He testified that he quit because the mounting stress
and pressure of the job, over the previous two years, caused him
to suffer various physical ailments, including headaches and chest
pains. He said he sought medical treatment, and his physician
prescribed various diagnostic tests, but had not formulated a
definitive diagnosis. However, he had been prescribed "anti-
depressant or anti-anxiety medicine."
In support of his claim, DeGrazia introduced into evidence a
November 16, 2015 note from his physician, which stated, "Due to
mental health issues please extend Thomas' unemployment benefits
through December 1, 2015." DeGrazia testified that his doctor
asked if he could "take it easy," but DeGrazia told him that he
could not do so and remain on the job.
DeGrazia asserted that he told his superiors that the job was
making him sick. DeGrazia admitted that he never asked for medical
leave or accommodations at work. In essence, he asserted it would
have been futile, because he perceived there was no alternative
work for him.
2 A-3867-15T1
Upon review of his claim's initial rejection, the Appeal
Tribunal held that DeGrazia was required to submit "specific
medical records to validate [the] contention" that his job impaired
his health. The doctor's note he submitted did not suffice.
Consequently, the Tribunal concluded DeGrazia was disqualified
from receiving benefits because he left work voluntarily without
good cause attributable to work. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). DeGrazia
presented no additional evidence to the Board of Review, which
affirmed the Tribunal's decision.
On appeal, DeGrazia renews his argument that he left work for
health or medical reasons.
We exercise limited review of the Board's decision. See
Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We will affirm
the Board's decision if it is supported by substantial credible
evidence. Ibid. A person is generally disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits if he or she "has left work voluntarily
without good cause attributable to such work . . . ." N.J.S.A.
43:21-5(a). We recognize that "[a]n individual who leaves work
because of a disability which has a work-connected origin is not
subject to disqualification for voluntarily leaving work . . . ."
N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.3(a). However, "[w]hen an individual leaves work
for health or medical reasons, medical certification shall be
3 A-3867-15T1
required to support a finding of good cause attributable to work."
N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.3(d).1
Simply put, DeGrazia's proofs fell short. The only medical
evidence presented was the doctor's uncertified note. Even reading
that note indulgently, it stated only that DeGrazia was not fit
for work between November 16 and December 2015. It did not address
the cause of DeGrazia's disability, nor did it say he could not
return to his job for health reasons. Rather, the note implied
that he would be fit to return to work on December 1, 2015. Thus,
the Board's decision is supported by substantial credible evidence
since DeGrazia failed to present adequate proof of work-related
illness required by the governing regulation.
Affirmed.
1
The person who leaves work for work-related medical reasons must
also demonstrate "there was no other suitable work available which
the individual could have performed within the limits of the
disability." N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.3(a). Neither the Tribunal nor the
Board relied on this requirement. Therefore, we need not address
it.
4 A-3867-15T1