Jacqueline C. Lahm v. Board of Review

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: A-3364-23
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3364-23

JACQUELINE C. LAHM,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and CARING PEOPLE NJ OPERATING, LLC,

Respondents. _____________________________

Submitted December 2, 2025 – Decided February 5, 2026

Before Judges DeAlmeida and Torregrossa-O'Connor.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Division of Unemployment Insurance, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 314586.

Law Firm of William Koy, LLP, attorneys for appellant (William F. Koy, on the briefs).

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Christopher Weber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Rimma Razhba, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM

Claimant Jacqueline Lahm appeals from a final agency decision by the

Board of Review, Department of Labor (the Board), determining she falsely

represented her eligibility for unemployment benefits, disqualifying her from

further benefits for a one-year period, and requiring her to refund the benefits

received and pay a fine. Claimant argues her failure to disclose earnings in her

certified submissions resulted from her mistaken understanding of the nature of

her claim, which should excuse any error and relieve her of any obligation to

refund payments or pay a fine. Because we are satisfied the Board's

determination is supported by substantial credible evidence and discern nothing

arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the Board's decision, we affirm.

I.

Claimant worked as a licensed practical nurse for Caring People New

Jersey, LLC (Caring People), from June 2017 to October 2022, and for another

employer, Crystal Lake from 1991 to 2020. When her employment with Crystal

Lake ended, she applied for unemployment benefits despite remaining employed

by Caring People. Claimant's application was approved. While receiving

benefits, claimant provided regular online certifications in which she either

failed to disclose or underreported her wages from Caring People.

A-3364-23 2 By notice to claimant dated October 3, 2022, the Director of the Division

of Unemployment Insurance imposed a one-year disqualification for future

benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(g)(1), following a determination claimant

had illegally received benefits based upon false or fraudulent representations in

her claim submissions. The notice further advised claimant was liable pursuant

to N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d) to refund State benefits in the amount of $6,675 for

payments from the week ending May 2, 2020 through October 24, 2020, and

$11,741 in federal benefits for the weeks ending October 31, 2020 through

December 12, 2020, and from January 2, 2021 through September 4, 2021. The

notice included imposition of a fine in the amount of $4,599.50 pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(a).

Claimant appealed the Director's determination and was granted a hearing

before the Appeal Tribunal, which took place on February 10, 2023. Claimant

testified, as did Division of Fraud Prevention and Risk Management Investigator

Cory White, who evaluated the alleged overpayment of benefits to claimant.

The investigator testified a claims audit revealed conflicting wage information

from Caring People showing earnings by claimant during the periods for which

she received unemployment benefits. White indicated a "fact finding letter" was

sent to claimant in September 2022 concerning the audit and potential

A-3364-23 3 overpayment of benefits, to which she responded in writing on September 14.

According to the investigator, claimant's response "detailed frustration using the

unemployment website," and stated she was "collecting due to a reduction in

hours" and "quarantine." White indicated claimant also included a doctor's letter

dated April 6, 2022, stating a "need for quarantine," and a "positive C[OVID-

19] test dated August 10, 2021." Claimant's response also included a "written

note stating . . . the amount in question is incorrect," but according to White "no

evidence disputing the reported earnings was provided."

White chronicled claimant's weekly electronic claim submissions and the

conflicting earnings reported by Caring People, and corresponding

documentation was admitted into the record. He explained "the fraud

determination was made since there were more than four weeks [claimant

reported] zero wages . . . . Specifically, [seventy-nine] of the [eighty-nine]

weeks in conflict had zero wages reported." White detailed the online weekly

claim certification process, which included a specific inquiry of claimant,

asking, "[D]id you work during the weeks claimed?" According to the

investigator, an affirmative response by claimant would prompt follow-up

questions concerning the amount earned and the employer who paid the wages.

A-3364-23 4 White further explained the online system notifies claimants in writing on

a "[b]ig red" screen that "collecting unemployment insurance benefits while

working is a crime." The certifying claimant is then required "to click that they

accept in order to proceed." The investigator further represented the website

provides guidance "detailing how to claim benefits properly."

Claimant testified conceding she filed an unemployment claim and

received weekly benefits in the amounts the investigator itemized. Claimant

also admitted she worked as a nurse for Caring People from June 2017 to

October 2022 and either "did not report or underreported" those earnings in her

unemployment certifications.

She claimed she collected unemployment benefits while working for

Caring People "[u]nder the assumption that it was [a] . . . partial unemployment

claim from [her] other job" with Crystal Lake. Claimant testified she used the

online certification system and "followed the C[ARES1] Act Pandemic System

that is presented prior to claiming," alleging Caring People's Human Resources

advised her to continue to submit for benefits. She testified she was quarantined

1 Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) is an alternative form of relief for those not otherwise eligible for traditional unemployment and provided under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9141. A-3364-23 5 "every other week" while working at Crystal Lake, and because she had

preexisting health issues, her "doctor suggested that [she] quarantine." She

stopped working at Crystal Lake on April 12, 2020.

Claimant initially admitted she read and acknowledged the fraud warnings

when certifying her claims, but then indicated she could not recall but "guess[ed]

[she] did." She emphasized she did not submit false information deliberately,

although she acknowledged roughly ten submissions in which she reported some

earnings in incorrect amounts despite typically failing to report any wages. She

testified she could not explain why she made those occasional inaccurate

representations.

By written decision mailed March 2, 2023, the Appeal Tribunal affirmed

the Director's determination and denied claimant's appeal. The written decision

included a detailed itemization of the benefits claims made, wages reported,

wages earned, and overpayments.

The Appeal Tribunal "rejected" claimant's contention "she did not report

the wages because she thought that she was collecting benefits from another

employer." The Appeal Tribunal reasoned:

During the online certification process, . . . claimant repeatedly answered no to the question . . . which asks "did you work during the weeks claimed?" The question is generic and does not ask for a specific

A-3364-23 6 employer. The claimant also acknowledged when certifying online, that she read the internet warning by certifying for benefits, which states that "collecting unemployment benefits while working and not reporting wages is a crime." The warning goes on to state that you must report any wages earned in the week, and explains the meaning of wages.

The Appeal Tribunal also emphasized, "Although under-

reported, . . . claimant reported wages for six weeks." Thus, the Appeal

Tribunal observed, "[t]his indicates that . . . claimant had knowledge of how to

report wages." Accordingly, the Appeal Tribunal found claimant's benefits

resulted from "false or fraudulent representation[s]," disqualifying her for

benefits for a one-year period commencing from the time of the fraud's

discovery—October 3, 2022. It further determined claimant's wages were not

reported for the periods between weeks ending May 2, 2020 through October

24, 2020, October 31, 2020 through December 12, 2020, and January 2, 2021

through September 4, 2021. Accordingly, the Appeal Tribunal ordered refunds

of $6,675 for illegally obtained State benefits and $11,741 for federal benefits,

and imposed a fine of $4,599.50.

Claimant sent a letter to the Board dated February 27, 2023, appealing the

Appeal Tribunal's decision and claiming she was approved for PUA, not for

traditional unemployment benefits. She indicated she was approved for PUA

A-3364-23 7 benefits after she separated from her "second job" due to "severe risk of

exposure." She attached no documentation or evidence to support her claims

that she "was acting as . . . directed by [u]nemployment."

By written decision, mailed on May 22, 2024, the Board affirmed the

Appeal Tribunal's determination. It determined claimant received "a full and

impartial hearing" and was afforded "a complete opportunity to offer any and

all evidence," and found "no valid ground for a further hearing." The Board

"agree[d] with the decision," correcting only incorrect claim dates .2

II.

On appeal, claimant reprises her arguments made before the Appeal

Tribunal and the Board. Once again, she does not challenge the Board's

calculations of benefits paid and wages earned; instead, she contends the Board

erred in affirming the Appeal Tribunal's determination her unemployment

benefits were derived from her false or fraudulent representations and

omissions. She contends she qualified for PUA benefits, and regardless, any

wages earned from her work for Caring People were "minimal." She further

2 The Board corrected the determination to reflect claimant filed a benefits claim on "April 11, 2021 which established a weekly benefit rate of $198," and noted an error in the chart of claims, which should have reflected 2022. These changes are not the subject of this appeal. A-3364-23 8 argues any inaccuracy in her submission must be forgiven as the product of her

good faith mistake. Claimant also contends she relied on guidance from the

unemployment office and her employer, Caring People, asserting neither

intervened to correct any error for months, furthering any misapprehension she

may have held concerning her right to benefits.

We assess claimant's arguments under our well-settled standards for

reviewing agency determinations. When reviewing unemployment benefits

determinations, we afford special deference to the Board's expertise in

administrating the Unemployment Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -71,

Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210-11 (1997), and we will not reverse

unless its decision is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable or . . . not supported

by substantial credible evidence in the record," In re Ambroise, 258 N.J. 180,

197 (2024) (omission in original) (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194

(2011)). Indeed, "[i]n reviewing the factual findings made in an unemployment

compensation proceeding, the test is not whether [we] would come to the same

conclusion if the original determination was [ours] to make, but rather whether

the factfinder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Brady, 152 N.J.

at 210 (first alteration in original) (quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Rev., 200 N.J.

Super. 74, 79 (App. Div. 1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The burden

A-3364-23 9 to show an agency's abuse of discretion "is on the challenger." Parsells v. Bd.

of Educ. of Borough of Somerville, 472 N.J. Super. 369, 376 (App. Div. 2022).

Critically, N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d)(1) requires the full repayment of

unemployment benefits received by an individual who for any reason, including

fraud, was not entitled to those benefits. See, e.g., Malady v. Bd. of Rev., 76

N.J. 527, 531 (1978); Bannan v. Bd. of Rev., 299 N.J. Super. 671, 674 (App.

Div. 1997). Indeed, the obligation to repay is unaffected by the good faith of

the claimant. Bannan, 299 N.J. Super. at 674. If, however, a claimant obtains

benefits fraudulently, an employee may be further required: (1) to refund all

benefits received, including those to which the employee was entitled, Malady,

76 N.J. at 531 (interpreting N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d)); (2) to pay a fine equal to

twenty-five percent of the amount fraudulently obtained, N.J.S.A. 43:21-

16(a)(1); and (3) to be disqualified from receiving benefits for one year, N.J.S.A.

43:21-5(g)(1).

We have reviewed the record under the applicable law and discern no

reversible error in the Board's affirmance of the Appeal Tribunal's finding

claimant was required to repay the benefits she received. Reimbursement would

be reasonable and required regardless of fault or intent. Bannan, 299 N.J. Super.

A-3364-23 10 at 674. We are not convinced the Board acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in

finding claimant liable to refund benefits to which she was not entitled.

We are unpersuaded the Board's finding of fraud lacked sufficient support

in the record. The Appeal Tribunal, after a full hearing, provided its reasons,

anchored in the testimony and evidence, for concluding claimant falsely

reported earning no wages on seventy-nine occasions, while admittedly

simultaneously receiving wages for her employment at Caring People. The

record also supported the Appeal Tribunal's findings, accepted by the Board,

that claimant's affirmatively reporting earnings on several occasions, albeit

inaccurately, reflected claimant's knowledge of her obligation to report wages

she received from whatever source.

Significantly, sufficient evidence supports the conclusion claimant

repeatedly encountered a relevant written fraud warning when recertifying her

claim, which boldly alerted her that failure to report income while collecting

unemployment benefits constituted a crime. The evidence demonstrated that

each time claimant was alerted, she affirmatively "clicked" to acknowledge her

receipt of the warning and then proceeded to omit any report of her weekly

earnings from Caring People. As noted by the Appeal Tribunal, the certification

asked of claimant the same direct and unambiguous "generic" question each

A-3364-23 11 time—whether she "work[ed] during the weeks claimed"—and did not specify

or imply any limitation to a particular employer. Accordingly, we will not

disturb the Board's determination, resting on sufficient evidence that claimant's

benefits were derived from false or fraudulent representations barring claimant

from eligibility for one year.

For these reasons, we also reject claimant's argument the Board's decision

to impose a fine was improper in these circumstances. N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(a)(1)

provides:

Whoever makes a false statement or representation, knowing it to be false, or knowingly fails to disclose a material fact, to obtain . . . any benefit . . . shall be liable to a fine of 25% of the amount fraudulently obtained.

The Board acted within its statutory authority in assessing the fine upon its

determination claimant made knowing material omissions from her

certifications.

To the extent we have not addressed any of claimant's remaining

arguments, we determine they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a

written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We note only that we have considered

claimant's argument she was approved for PUA. However, she presents no

factual or legal support for this claim, nor did she present any evidence before

A-3364-23 12 the Appeal Tribunal or Board on this issue. We are certainly cognizant of the

pandemic-related hardships acutely encountered by health care professionals,

particularly those with personal health concerns. However, on the record before

us, we have no basis upon which to conclude claimant was somehow approved

for PUA or was otherwise eligible for PUA in some way that might undermine

the Board's otherwise sound determination.

Affirmed.

A-3364-23 13