Board of Review Decision 352-ND57-55FR

Mass DTA card and a Transit Authority ADA Paratransit Service card, which have photographs resembling the person at the hearing, as well as colored copies of an unexpired Massachusetts driver’s license, a paystub, bank statements, and Social Security card, which include identifying information that matches the information used to file a claim for benefits, verifies claimant’s identity as required under G.L. c. 151A § 25(a).

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

Issue ID: 352-ND57-55FR

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 unemployment benefits. We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and reverse. 

The claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the DUA, effective October 26, 2025, which was denied in a determination issued on November 13, 2025. The claimant appealed the determination to the DUA hearings department. Following a hearing on the merits, attended by the claimant, the review examiner affirmed the agency’s initial determination and denied benefits in a decision rendered on March 9, 2026. We accepted the claimant’s application for review.

Benefits were denied after the review examiner determined that the claimant did not meet the filing and registration requirements to verify his identity as the person who filed this claim for unemployment insurance benefits, and, thus, he was disqualified under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(a). After considering the recorded testimony and evidence from the hearing, the review examiner’s decision, and the claimant’s appeal, we remanded the case to the review examiner to afford the claimant an opportunity to present additional documentary proof of his identity. The claimant attended the remand hearing. Thereafter, the review examiner issued her consolidated findings of fact. Our decision is based upon our review of the entire record. 

The issue before the Board is whether the review examiner’s decision, which concluded that the claimant did not provide substantial documentation to verify that he was the person who filed this claim because he did not provide any evidence verifying his identity, Social Security number, and birth date, is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law. 

Findings of Fact

The review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact and credibility assessment are set forth below in their entirety:

1. The claimant filed an initial claim with the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) with an effective date of October 26, 2025. He provided [Address A] as his home address. 
2. At some point, after January 7, 2026, and prior to April 10, 2026, the claimant added [Address B] as his mailing address. 
3. On November 13, 2025, the DUA issued an Identity Verification Notice of Disqualification stating that the claimant was not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
4. The claimant possesses a Benefit Verification Letter dated December 3, 2025, from the Social Security Administration addressed to him, at [PO Box]. 
5. The claimant possesses receipts indicating that he paid $975 on November 20, 2025, and December 4, 2025, for rent at [Address A].
6. The claimant possesses what appears to be an electronically delivered letter from a financial institution, showing he completed a Cash Management Account Application, for an Individual CMA, on February 4, 2025, which was opened. This document displays [Address A], as the claimant’s contact information and [PO Box] as the claimant’s mailing address.
7. The claimant possesses what appears to be an electronic bank account statement for the period of November 26, 2025, to December 29, 2025, which displays the address [Address A].
8. The claimant possesses what appears to be an electronic letter from a bank, addressed to the claimant, dated December 18, 2025, which displays the address [PO Box]. 
9. The claimant possesses a pay stub, issued to him on September 18, 2025, which displays the address [Address A].
10. The claimant possesses what appears to be an electronic letter addressed to him, at [PO Box], from the Department of Transitional Assistance, regarding income verification, dated December 9, 2025.
11. The claimant possesses a typed letter from a program therapist at a hospital, confirming that the claimant was hospitalized from November 4, 2025, to November 20, 2025. This letter states that the claimant date of birth is March 30, 1966. The letter is signed electronically. 
12. The claimant possesses a black and white and a color copy of the front and back of a Massachusetts Driver’s license issued, in his name, on March 19, 2024. It will expire on March 30, 2029. The photo on the card appears to be of the person who identified themselves as the claimant during the virtual hearings held on January 28, 2026, and April 21, 2026. This card lists the claimant’s date [sic] as March 30, 1966. The address on this license is [Address B].
13. The claimant possesses a black and white and a color copy of the front and back of a signed original Social Security card. This is an original social security card on which appears the claimant’s first name, last name and middle initial. The first and last name match the name used to file the present claim for unemployment benefits. No middle initial was used to file this unemployment claim. The number on this card ends in x0762 and matches the number used to file the present claim. The claimant did not like how his signature looked on the card. He therefore whited out the original signature and resigned the card.
14. The claimant also possesses black and white and color copies of a Mass DTA card and a current [County] Transit Authority ADA Paratransit Service card issued in his name which have photos that appear to be of the person who identified themselves as the claimant during the virtual hearings held on January 28, 2026 and April 21, 2026.
15. The claimant possesses what appears to be an Account Summary from a financial institution for January 29, 2026, to February 25, 2026, addressed to him at [Address A]. This appears to have been delivered to him by U.S. mail given the creases in the document and the message regarding how to switch to paperless included next to the bank’s name in the header.

[Credibility] Assessment:

The claimant provided [Address B] as his mailing address to DUA. This is also the address on his driver’s license. The record indicates that his actual mailing address is [PO Box]. The claimant has numerous documents, many of them electronically delivered, addressed to him at either [PO Box] or [Address B]. It is found that these two addresses are similar enough to be considered the same. It is deemed likely that [Address B] is the address of the Post Office where [PO Box] is located. 

The claimant’s Social Security card and driver’s license appear to be authentic. The claimant’s testimony that he did not like the way his signature on his social security card looked and therefore whited it out and resigned it was found to be credible.

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 conclusion is free from error of law. Upon such review, the Board adopts the review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact and deems them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. We further believe that the review examiner’s credibility assessment is reasonable in relation to the evidence presented. However, as discussed more fully below, we reject the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant is not entitled to benefits. 

In order to obtain benefits, the claimant must follow the provisions of G.L. c. 151A, § 25(a), which state, in relevant part, as follows:

No waiting period shall be allowed and no benefits shall be paid to an individual under this chapter for—(a) Any week in which he fails without good cause to comply with the registration and filing requirements of the commissioner. . . .    

During the original hearing, the claimant submitted black and white copies of government issued documents that were of poor quality, leaving the review examiner unable to verify his identity and Social Security number. After remand, the record now includes colored copies of the claimant’s unexpired Massachusetts driver’s license, Social Security card, including a Massachusetts DTA card, and a current [County] Transit Authority ADA Paratransit Service card, both with his photograph. The information on these documents matches the information used to file this unemployment claim. The review examiner also found that the picture on the Massachusetts driver’s license, DTA card, and [County] Paratransit card resembled the person appearing at the hearing as the claimant. See Consolidated Findings 12 and 14. 

Though not specifically referenced in the review examiner’s consolidated findings, the DUA’s electronic record keeping system confirms that the date of birth listed on the claimant’s driver’s license and hospital letter is the same date of birth the claimant used to file this claim for benefits. See Consolidated Findings 11 and 12. 

The claimant filed a claim for benefits with a home address of [Address A]. See Consolidated Finding 1. After January 2026, and prior to the remand hearing, the claimant updated his unemployment insurance demographics in the DUA’s electronic record keeping system to include a mailing address of [Address B]. See Consolidated Finding 2. To verify his home address, the claimant submitted a completed financial application, a paystub, bank statements, and rental receipts, which matched the home address listed on his claim. See Consolidated Findings 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 15. 

With respect to verifying the claimant’s mailing address, he submitted multiple documents, including his driver’s license that either contained a [PO Box] address or [Address B]. See Consolidated Findings 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. In the review examiner’s credibility assessment, she determined that the two addresses were similar enough to be considered the same since [Address B] is the address where the [PO Box] is located. Based on this assessment, we can reasonably infer that the documents presented by the claimant with the aforementioned addresses match the mailing address he used to file his claim for benefits. Additionally, she found that the claimant’s Social Security card matched the name and Social Security number used to file his claim for benefits, and that the authenticity of the card was not compromised because the claimant whited out his signature and resigned the card. See also Consolidated Finding 13. Such assessments are within the scope of the fact finder’s role, and, unless they are unreasonable in relation to the evidence presented, they will not be disturbed on appeal. See School Committee of Brockton v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 423 Mass. 7, 15 (1996). Following our review of the record, we believe that the review examiner’s assessment is reasonable in relation to the evidence presented. 

In light of the consolidated findings and credibility assessment, we are satisfied that the claimant has met his burden to confirm that he is the person who filed an unemployment claim and not an imposter.

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that the claimant has produced substantial and credible evidence to verify his identity. He has met the registration and filing requirements for benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 25(a).

The review examiner’s decision is reversed. The claimant is entitled to receive benefits for the week ending November 1, 2025, and for subsequent weeks if otherwise eligible.

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – May 12, 2026

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.

DY/rh