FRANK M. SIMONELLI,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
Respondent,
and E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, LLC,
Employer-Respondent.

___________________________________________

Submitted: March 14, 2006 - Decided April 12, 2006

Before Judges Stern and A. A. Rodríguez.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 39,589.

Frank M. Simonelli, appellant, filed a pro se letter brief.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; John C. Turi, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

The decision of the Board of Review (Board), which disqualified Frank M. Simonelli (claimant) for unemployment benefits for one week from May 9, 2004 to May 15, 2004, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 12:17-4.1(a) is summarily affirmed.

These are the material facts. Claimant was employed as a "computer administrator, divisional supervisor" by E.R. Squibb & Sons, LLC (employer) from August 1998 to May 7, 2004. On the latter day, he was laid-off. He applied for unemployment benefits on May 16, 2004. The application was untimely for the week of May 9, 2004, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 12:17-4.2(a), which provides that the effective date of an unemployment claim "is the Sunday of the week in which the claimant first reports to claim benefits." Thus, a Deputy to the Director, Division of Unemployment Insurance (Division), determined that claimant was ineligible for benefits for the week of May 9 through 15, 2004 because claimant failed to file a timely application for that period.

Claimant appealed the Deputy's determination to the Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal when claimant failed to appear at a hearing scheduled for July 26, 2004. Claimant requested another hearing. At a September 2, 2004 hearing, claimant again failed to appear. The appeal was dismissed for a second time. Claimant asked that another hearing be scheduled. The Appeal Tribunal scheduled a telephone hearing on October 20, 2004. At the hearing, claimant explained that he did not file a claim for benefits during his first week of unemployment because he was upset over losing his job and was unaware that he needed to file a claim in the week in which he became unemployed. The Appeal Tribunal found that claimant failed to show good cause for not filing a claim during the week beginning May 9, 2004 and upheld the Deputy's determination.

Claimant appealed to the Board. The Board adopted the findings and recommendation of the Appeal Tribunal. Claimant now appeals to us. He stated his argument in a letter brief dated July 1, 2005 as follows:

I applied for unemployment compensation benefits on May 16, 2004. Unfortunately due to being out of work, and was not familiarized with the procedures and process of claiming unemployment benefits, I was also upset and demoralized just losing my job. How can someone make a decision that I the claimant, is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits, when I was out of work the week of May 9, 2004 through May 15, 2004? How is that possible? I strongly feel that I am entitled to collecting unemployment benefits for this week. Why does it matter whether you [file] for unemployment benefits on May 9, 2004, or on May 16, 2004? Either way, I'm still entitled to collecting unemployment benefits! What difference does it make? I'm writing about one week here!

Claimant misunderstands the reason for his ineligibility for benefits during the period in question. The issue is not whether he was unemployed. The issue is whether he made a timely application.

Unemployment benefits are subject to statutory and regulatory requirements. Thus, an unemployed person is eligible for benefits "only if" the:

individual has filed a claim at an unemployment insurance claims office . . . as directed by the division in accordance with such regulations as the division may prescribe . . .

[N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(a).]

The regulations promulgated by the Division require that claimants report within a specific time frame. N.J.A.C. 12:17-4.1(a). Any "individual who fails to report as directed will be ineligible for benefits unless" he shows "that there is 'good cause' for [his] failing to comply." N.J.A.C. 12:17-4.1(b). "Good cause" is defined as "any situation which was substantial and prevented the claimant from reporting as required by the Division." Ibid.

The purpose of the timely reporting requirement is to establish a claimant's unemployment status and to verify the claimant's ability to work, or to search for work. These prerequisites cannot be established until a claim is filed.

Here, it is undisputed that: (1) Claimant did not file a timely application; and (2) there is no good reason to relax the regulatory requirements. Therefore, the Board's decision is affirmed.

At the hearing, claimant also argued that he was entitled to benefits because he "paid towards it throughout my whole career." However, "[p]ayment by a worker of statutorily mandated contributions . . . does not guarantee entitlement to . . . benefits." Moyer v. Board of Review, 183 N.J. Super. 543, 546 (App. Div. 1982). Claimant is not eligible for the period for which he seeks benefits simply because he did not file timely.

Affirmed.