DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
| Citation | 100 N.J.Super. 473,242 A.2d 640 |
| Docket Number | No. A--60,A--60 |
| Parties | Virginia DeLORENZO, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, State of New Jersey and M & S Knitwear, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 26 April 1968 |
Page 473
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, State of New Jersey and M &
S Knitwear, Respondents.
Appellate Division.
Decided April 26, 1968.
Page 474
Irving Leuchter, Newark, for appellant (Kapelsohn, Lerner, Leuchter & Reitman, Newark, attorneys).
Edward A. Kaplan, Jersey City, for respondents.
Before Judges CONFORD, COLLESTER and LABRECQUE.
PER CURIAM.
Claimant Virginia DeLorenzo appeals from a decision of the Board of Review, Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor and Industry, which affirmed a determination of the Appeal Tribunal that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits as of October 7, 1966 under N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(a) for leaving work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work and that she was liable for a refund of benefits received in the sum of $685.
Claimant, aged 65, a sewing machine operator employed by M & S Knitwear, terminated her employment on October 7, 1966 when she became disabled due to high blood pressure, a gall bladder condition and appendicitis. No claim was made that her ill health was attributable to her employment. Thereafter, she was paid temporary disability benefits for 8 1/2 weeks under the employer's private plan established pursuant to the Temporary Disability Benefits Law, N.J.S.A. 43:21--25 et seq. During the period of her illness claimant applied for federal social security benefits and received her first monthly benefit of $100.60 in December 1966.
[242 A.2d 641] On December 15, 1966 claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits, and thereafter weekly benefits were paid to her through the week ending April 20, 1967, totalling
Page 475
$685. On May 27, 1967 claimant's former employer, in response to an inquiry from the local employment office of the Division of Employment Security, said he was willing to rehire the claimant. She returned to her job on June 6, 1967.On June 1, 1967 a deputy of the Division determined that when claimant left her employment due to illness on October 7, 1966 she left her job voluntarily without good cause attributable to her work. A demand was made by the Division for a refund of the $685 paid in benefits.
Claimant appealed to the Appeal Tribunal which conducted a plenary hearing. Contrary to claimant's testimony that she had been told in December 1966 that there was no work available for her, her employer testified that there had been work for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haley v. Bd. of Review, A-71 September Term 2019
...would last. The Board further argues that the Appellate Division decision does not conflict with DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, 100 N.J. Super. 473, 476, 242 A.2d 640 (App. Div. 1968), where the court explained that the word "voluntarily" within the statutory phrase "voluntarily without good......
-
Gibson v. Rutledge, 15276
...on Page 140 the meaning or effect of the word "voluntarily." See, e.g., DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Security, 100 N.J.Super. 473, 242 A.2d 640 (1968); Bussmann Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Missouri, 327 S.W.2d 487 However, this approach ignores one of the pr......
-
DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry
...thereafter determined she had been disqualified from receiving those benefits and had to refund them. The Appellate Division affirmed, 100 N.J.Super. 473, 242 A.2d 640 (1968), and we granted certification, 52 N.J. 165, 244 A.2d 297 (1968). After argument, we remanded the matter to the Board......
-
DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry, A--56
...PER CURIAM. We granted certification, 52 N.J. 165, 244 A.2d 297 (1968), to review a judgment [249 A.2d 69] of the Appellate Division, 100 N.J.Super. 473, 242 A.2d 640 (1968), which affirmed judgments of the Appeal Tribunal and of the Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security or......
-
Haley v. Bd. of Review
...would last. The Board further argues that the Appellate Division decision does not conflict with DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, 100 N.J. Super. 473, 476, 242 A.2d 640 (App. Div. 1968), where the court explained that the word "voluntarily" within the statutory phrase "voluntarily without good......
-
Gibson v. Rutledge, 15276
...little or no weight is placed on the meaning or effect of the word "voluntarily." See, e.g., DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Security, 100 N.J.Super. 473, 242 A.2d 640 (1968); Bussmann Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Missouri, 327 S.W.2d 487 However, this approach ......
-
DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry
...determined she had been disqualified from receiving those benefits and had to refund them. The Appellate Division affirmed, 100 N.J.Super. 473, 242 A.2d 640 (1968), and we granted certification, 52 N.J. 165, 244 A.2d 297 (1968). After argument, we remanded the matter to the Board of Review,......
-
DeLorenzo v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry
...PER CURIAM. We granted certification, 52 N.J. 165, 244 A.2d 297 (1968), to review a judgment of the Appellate Division, 100 N.J.Super. 473, 242 A.2d 640 (1968), which affirmed judgments of the Appeal Tribunal and of the Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security ordering the emp......