Board of Review Decision 334-FHJN-4RDP

Held the claimant’s disability, which impaired her ability to retain and recall information and dates, constituted good cause to miss the 20-week application deadline for submitting her application for training benefits. Inasmuch as she demonstrated that she needs the training to become re-employed, she is eligible for extended benefits under G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c), in each semester when she is enrolled full-time.

Board of Review
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Issue ID: 334-FHJN-4RDP

Board of Review Decision

Introduction and Procedural History of this Appeal 

The claimant appeals a decision by a review examiner of the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) to deny an extension of the claimant’s unemployment benefits while she was participating in a training program. Benefits were denied on the ground that the claimant was not taking enough credits to be considered attending her program on a full-time basis, and, thus, the claimant did not meet the requirements for training benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c), and 430 CMR 9.00 et seq. (training benefits). 

The claimant had filed a claim for unemployment benefits, effective June 16, 2024, which was approved. On February 4, 2025, she submitted an application to the DUA for an extension of benefits to attend a training program, which the agency denied in a determination issued on March 25, 2025. The claimant appealed to the DUA Hearings Department. Following a hearing on the merits, the review examiner affirmed the agency’s denial of training benefits in a decision rendered on April 17, 2025. The claimant sought review by the Board, which affirmed on different grounds, and the claimant appealed to the District Court pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 42.

On October 21, 2025, at the request of the DUA Legal Department, the Board of Review issued an Order rescinding its decision in order to consider further material evidence. As a result, the District Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal, and we remanded the case to the review examiner for additional evidence relating to the claimant’s notice of the application deadline, documentation of her disabilities, her work experience and work search log, as well as an official transcript of her course progress, the academic calendar, and the requirements to graduate. The claimant attended the remand hearing with counsel. Thereafter, the review examiner issued her consolidated findings of fact.

The issue before the Board is whether the review examiner’s decision, which concluded that the claimant is ineligible for training benefits, is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law in light of the record after remand demonstrating the claimant’s challenges due to disabilities and inability to find work based on her prior qualifications.

After reviewing the entire record, including the recorded testimony and evidence from the hearings, the review examiner’s decision, the claimant’s appeal, and the consolidated findings of fact, we affirm in part and reverse in part the review examiner’s decision.

Findings of Fact

The review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact and credibility assessment, which were issued following the claimant’s appeal to the District Court, are set forth below in their entirety:

1. The claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits with an effective date of June 16, 2024, with a benefit year end of June 28, 2025. 
2. The claimant received her first unemployment benefit payment during the week ending July [20], 2024. 
3. The claimant participated in the RESEA program in 2018 and 2024. The claimant was advised about the TOP program and the attendant deadlines on August 8, 2018, and August 13, 2024, respectively. 
4. The claimant was sent a notice of the TOP program by letter dated January 7, 2022. The letter was sent to [Address]. 
5. The claimant did not receive the notice of TOP letter. 
6. The claimant moved to [City] in the fall of 2021 and no longer used the [Address] address. 
7. The claimant earned a bachelor’s degree in business administration from [Institution A] in 2016. The claimant’s degree prepared her for work in project management, information, and as a data or business analyst. 
8. From March to June 2018, the claimant worked as a full time accountant, performing general accounting duties. 
9. From March to November 2019, the claimant worked as a full time cash application specialist for a temporary employment agency performing accounting duties and analyzing data regarding accounts and identifying errors. 
10. From November 2019 to March 2020, the claimant worked as a full time international advancement associate for a private university. The claimant supported advancement staff, solved technical issues in the customer relations management system, conducted research and made presentations, and analysis of gifts and gift impacts. 
11. From August 2021, until she was laid off in June 2024, the claimant was a full time SAP S/4HANA Finance Consultant for an accounting and professional services business. The claimant’s job duties primarily involved project management. The claimant was responsible for implementing new systems for clients, analyzing data relative to employees’ time worked per clients, and working on fine-tuning an existing employer system. The claimant’s position was entry level, in that she did not have training or certifications in project management, and the employer did not offer same. 
12. Prior to applying for Section 30 benefits, the claimant was seeking work related to her past work experience and education. The claimant sought work in analytics and project management, as well as a finance consultant. 
13. The claimant determined that the skills she obtained through her undergraduate degree were now outdated due to current technology. 
14. The claimant began the application process to enroll in [Institution B] on December 10, 2024. The claimant applied to [Institution B]’s graduate program for a master’s degree in business analytics on January 6, 2025. The claimant was accepted into the program on January 13, 2025. 
15. The claimant is in need of the master’s degree to update her skills to the most recent technology, to enable her to work at a higher level in project management and provide skills in analytics. The claimant was unable to move beyond a first interview for project management positions and received no interviews for finance consultant positions. 
16. The claimant submitted her TOP application to the DUA on February 4, 2025, by uploading it to the DUA portal. 
17. The claimant did not submit her TOP application until February 4, 2025, because she was waiting for the school to complete the documentation. 
18. [Institution B] has a graduate catalog containing Academic Requirements and Policies. Under the Section headed, “Academic Standards,” “Full-time Academic Status,” the policy provides: A graduate student is considered a full-time student when enrolled in eight or more credits at [Institution B] in a single semester. 
19. The claimant earned 8 credits in the spring semester of the 2024-2025 academic year. From January 15, 2025, to March 7, 2025, the claimant attended Frameworks for Business Analytics and earned 4.0 credits. From March 17, 2025, to May 9, 2025, the claimant attended R and Python Programming and earned 4.0 credits. 
20. In the summer semester of the 2024-2025 academic year, the claimant attended Strategic Decision Making Using BUA, from May 12, 2025, to July 3, 2025, and earned 4.0 credits. The claimant attended Leveraging Competitive Advantage with Business Intelligence from July 7, 2025, to August 28, 2025. The claimant earned 4.0 credits for a total of 8.0 credits for the summer semester. 
21. In the fall semester of the 2025-2026 academic year, the claimant completed [sic] Data Governance, Compliance and Ethics course and earned 4.0 credits. The claimant withdrew from the Data Visualization and Storytelling course that would have earned her an additional 4.0 credits. 
22. The claimant withdrew from the Data Visualization and Storytelling course because she was falling behind. 
23. For the spring 2026 semester, the claimant is currently enrolled in Introduction to Data Science and Statistics and expects to earn 4.0 credits on or about March 6, 2026. The claimant expects to attend Predictive Modeling from March 16, 2026, through May 8, 2026, and earn an additional 4.0 credits. 
24. The claimant anticipates completing the program and earning her degree in December 2026. 
25. On an unknown date, the claimant was diagnosed with a speech impediment. 
26. In 2019, the claimant was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. 
27. On April 15, 2022, the claimant was diagnosed with ADHD. 
28. On October 1, 2025, the claimant’s medical provider detailed the claimant’s medical diagnoses, her treatment, and the effects of the claimant’s diagnoses in her daily activities. The medical provider has been treating the claimant since October 1, 2022. 
29. The claimant’s ADHD diagnosis affects the claimant’s ability to retain and recall information and dates, her organizational skills, and affects her ability to stay on and complete tasks. 
30. The claimant’s depression and anxiety diagnoses affect her mood and energy levels and can cause difficulties concentrating and completing daily tasks. 
31. From March 2025 to the end of June 2025, the claimant had weekly therapy appointments to treat her depression, anxiety, and ADHD. 
32. The claimant currently sees her psychiatrist monthly. 
33. The claimant takes medications on a daily basis to treat the depression, anxiety, and ADHD. 
34. The claimant is prescribed Welbutrin and Vraylar for her depression and anxiety, and Ritalin for her ADHD. She also is prescribed medication to treat insomnia. 
35. Since November 2025, the claimant receives transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) Monday through Friday to treat her depression and anxiety. 
36. The claimant did not disclose any of her diagnoses to the DUA when applying for benefits. The claimant did not believe the diagnoses were relevant to whether or not she would receive unemployment. 
37. The claimant requested [Institution B] reasonably accommodate her disabilities in March or April 2025. 
38. [Institution B] granted the claimant’s request for reasonable accommodation and provides her with extra time to complete exams, a quiet environment for exams to reduce distractions, note taking support, audio recordings of lectures, and consideration for her limited ability to speak clearly in oral presentations. 

Credibility Assessment: 

The claimant provided credible and consistent testimony at the remand hearings and provided medical records to establish her diagnoses, treatment, and medications, and the accommodations requested and granted by the school. Although she provided false information at the initial hearing that she did not participate in the RESEA program, given the medical documentation and her testimony about her diagnoses, which affect her memory and ability to retain information, it is considered credible that she did not recall attending RESEA prior to the 2025 TOP application.

Ruling of the Board

In accordance with our statutory obligation, we review the record and the decision made by the review examiner to determine: (1) whether the consolidated findings are supported by substantial and credible evidence; and (2) whether the review examiner’s original conclusion is free from error of law. After such review, the Board adopts the review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact except as follows. Consolidated Finding 17 is accurate insofar as it provides one of the reasons for the claimant not submitting her Training Opportunities Program (TOP) application until February 4, 2025. We further believe that the review examiner’s credibility assessment is reasonable in relation to the evidence presented. Given the new record after remand, we reject the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant is ineligible for training benefits, as discussed below.

The review examiner’s decision to deny the claimant’s application for training benefits derives from G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c), which relieves claimants who are enrolled in approved training programs of the obligation to search for work and permits extensions of up to 26 weeks of additional benefits. The procedures and guidelines for approving training benefits are set forth in 430 CMR 9.00–9.08.

In our prior decision in this case, we declined to address the issue of whether the claimant demonstrated that she needs the requested training program in order to become re-employed, as required under 430 CMR 9.03. After the recent remand, Consolidated Finding 7 shows that the claimant earned a bachelor’s degree in business administration in 2016, which prepared her for work in project management and information, data, or business analysis. Since then, she has had work experience primarily as an accountant, performing general accounting duties, analyzing data, identifying errors, and in entry level project management. See Consolidated Findings 8–11. Prior to applying for training benefits, she sought work in analytics, project management, and as a finance consultant but could not move beyond a first interview for project management and did not get any interviews for finance consultant positions. See Consolidated Findings 12 and 15. In light of these findings, we are satisfied that the claimant needs training to become re-employed.

Given the additional evidence now in the record, we also reconsider whether the claimant’s failure to submit her TOP application within the 20-week application period renders her ineligible for training benefits. See G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c). The claimant was required to submit her application within the first 20 compensable weeks of her claim. During her 2024 Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) program, she was advised that the deadline for submitting her TOP application was August, 13, 2024. See Consolidated Finding 3. However, because she did not receive her first unemployment benefit payment until the week ending July 20, 2024, the deadline to submit her application was actually later, the week ending November 30, 2024. See Consolidated Finding 2. Since she did not submit her TOP application until February 4, 2025, she missed the statutory application deadline.

However, the DUA regulations at 430 CMR 9.05(7), allow the 20-week application period to be waived for good cause if the claimant establishes that circumstances beyond her control prevented her from filing within the prescribed time period. In this case, we consider 430 CMR 9.05(7)(a), which states that a circumstance beyond a claimant’s control includes not understanding the deadline due to, inter alia, mental disability. The record after remand shows that the claimant is a person with a disability. Consolidated Findings 26–35 provide that the claimant has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and ADHD. The ADHD, specifically, affects her ability to retain and recall information and dates. We also consider 430 CMR 9.08, which states:

Nothing in 430 CMR 9.01 through 9.07 shall be deemed to exclude a qualified individual with a disability from training benefits under M.G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c).

Further, G.L. c. 151A, § 74, instructs us to construe the Unemployment Insurance Law liberally in aid of its purpose to lighten the burden which falls on the unemployment worker. 

In short, even though the claimant was made aware that there was an application deadline for submitting her TOP application during her 2024 RESEA meeting, we can reasonably infer that the disability, which renders her unable to retain and remember information and dates, contributed to missing the application deadline. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the claimant had good cause to miss her 20-week application deadline.

Finally, given the new consolidated findings, we must revisit the question of whether the claimant was enrolled full-time for the duration of her training period. In this graduate program at Merrimack College, enrollment in at least eight credits per semester is deemed to be full-time. See Consolidated Finding 18. However, during the fall 2025 semester, the claimant withdrew from a 4.0 credit course because she was falling behind. See Consolidated Findings 21 and 22. As a result, she was not enrolled full-time during this term. She did not meet the full-time enrollment requirement under 430 CMR 9.04(2)(b), and is ineligible for training benefits during this semester, which ran from September 1, 2025, to December 19, 2025. See Exhibit 3.

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that the claimant is eligible for training benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 30(c), with the exception of the fall 2025 semester, when she failed to maintain full-time enrollment as required pursuant to 430 CMR 9.04(2)(b). 

The review examiner’s decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The claimant is entitled to receive an extension of up to 26 times her weekly benefit rate, and a waiver of the availability and work search requirements, while attending this training program from the week ending January 18, 2025, through the week ending August 30, 2025, and from the week ending January 17, 2026, through the week ending May 9, 2026, if otherwise eligible. The claimant is not eligible for training benefits during the weeks ending September 6, 2025, through December 20, 2025.

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision - April 29, 2026

1. The DUA’s electronic record-keeping system shows that the claimant was paid in each of the 20 weeks between the week ending July 20, 2024, and the week ending November 30, 2024.
2. Exhibit 3 is the claimant’s TOP application, which includes the dates for each semester of her training program. While not explicitly incorporated into the review examiner’s findings, this exhibit is part of the unchallenged evidence introduced at the hearing and placed in the record, and it is thus properly referred to in our decision today. See Bleich v. Maimonides School, 447 Mass. 38, 40 (2006); Allen of Michigan, Inc. v. Deputy Dir. of Department of Employment and Training, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 370, 371 (2005).

Charlene A Stawicki, Esquire
Member

Michael J. Albano
Member

Any further appeal would further appeal further appeal would be to a Massachusetts State District Court
(See Section 42, Chapter 151A, General Laws, Enclosed)

The last day to appeal this decision to a Massachusetts District Court is thirty days from the mail date on the first page of this decision. If that thirtieth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the last day to appeal this decision is the business day next following the thirtieth day.

Visit this page to locate the nearest Massachusetts District Court.

Please be advised that fees for services rendered by an attorney or agent to a claimant in connection with an appeal to the Board of Review are not payable unless submitted to the Board of Review for approval, under G.L. c. 151A, § 37.

AB/rh