Indefinite Medical Leave: Insufficient Cause For Unemployment Comp

Aspects of Need Addressed: Occupational, Financial

Surely one of the most vexatious areas of The System for a disabled loved one must be the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance Services in the NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Nothing about it is easy or transparent--not the way of determining unemployment, the methods of applying for unemployment compensation, the automated telephone means of reporting status, on and on and on.

So I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the computerized form letter my son received today from this office. It reads:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT BASED UPON THE FACTS OBTAINED AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW JERSEY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW, THE DEPUTY (NAMED BELOW) HAS DETERMINED THAT:

YOU ARE DISQUALIFIED FOR BENEFITS FROM 02/14/10 AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE DISQUALIFIED UNTIL YOU HAVE WORKED IN FOUR OR MORE WEEKS IN EMPLOYMENT AND HAVE EARNED AT LEAST SIX TIMES YOUR WEEKLY BENEFIT RATE.

EFFECTIVE 2/15/10, YOU VOLUNTARILY LEFT YOUR JOB AS YOU CANNOT RETURN TO WORK FROM A MEDICAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE. WHILE THIS MAY BE A COMPELLING REASON FOR LEAVING, IT IS CONSIDERED PERSONAL AND WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO WORK. THEREFORE, YOU ARE DISQUALIFIED FOR BENEFITS. THIS IS THE SECOND OF TWO DETERMINATIONS.

DEPUTY: A RIVERA
FOR:
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

All this arose when my son had to leave his retail store cashier's job last December 15 to enter a partial care hospitalization program. He had to leave to address an addiction relapse. It was triggered on the job, where a couple of low-life co-workers were selling marijuana during the lunch hour to which my son succumbed.

Uncertain of how long he needed treatment, my son arranged with his employer a medical leave of absence. After a month, he still needed to continue his medical treatment. So he decided that he should formally end his job and reapply to his employer whenever he was better. After this decision, he reported his new status to the Social Security Administration, which revised his SSI and SSD to their maximum possible amounts. It was during this process that the Mercer County Board of Social Services sent him to the Division on Unemployment Insurance to determine his eligibility for unemployment compensation prior to any revision in his SSI and SSD. As it happened, The System in this case exercised correct policy: a disabled mentally ill worker could revert to higher SSI and SSD if he should have to leave his job, as long as he would not be receiving revenue from unemployment insurance.

What would be good to research is a question of relative benefit. For such a disabled person who might have to leave a job to enter treatment, which situation would allocate him more benefit? In other words, would the incremental SSI and SSD be less or more than the revenue he might have received from unemployment compensation? I have a hunch that the unemployment compensation would be more. In any event, it is worth reflecting on the occupational challenges the psychiatrically afflicted face on the road to recovery. Frequently cycling in and out of jobs as dictated by medical requirements requires enormous administrative and organizational effort.