Board of Review Decision 352-NDPM-6RNT

The claimant is automatically entitled to have his claim pre-dated pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 62A(g), because the employer did not provide him with the required written notice about how to file for unemployment benefits after he separated.

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

Issue ID: 352-NDPM-6RNT

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 earlier effective date for a claim for unemployment benefits. We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and reverse. 

The claimant separated from his position with the employer on November 1, 2025. He filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the DUA with an effective date of November 9, 2025, and subsequently requested to have his claim pre-dated to the week ending November 1, 2025. His request to pre-date the claim was denied in a determination issued on December 5, 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 the request to pre-date the claim in a decision rendered on April 6, 2026. We accepted the claimant’s application for review. 

An earlier effective date was denied after the review examiner determined that the claimant did not have good cause for failing to file a timely claim for benefits, and, thus, he was not entitled to have his claim pre-dated to the week ending November 1, 2025, under G.L. c. 151A, §§ 23(b) and 24(c). Our decision is based upon our review of the entire record, including the recorded testimony and evidence from the hearing, the review examiner’s decision, and the claimant’s appeal. 

The issue before the Board is whether the review examiner’s decision, which concluded that the claimant was not entitled to a pre-date because he was aware of the process for filing an unemployment insurance claim but delayed filing because was distraught over his involvement in ongoing legal proceedings, is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law. 

Findings of Fact

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

1. The claimant worked as a full-time Project Coordinator for the employer. The claimant’s last day at work was October 28, 2025. 
2. The claimant was arrested the morning of October 29, 2025. 
3. The claimant was charged federally and released on October 31, 2025, under pretrial supervision.
4. As part of the claimant’s pretrial supervision, the claimant’s internet usage was restricted. The claimant was given the information about the restriction of his internet on October 31, 2025. 
5. The claimant utilized the employer internet in the performance of his position. The employer had an internet usage policy. 
6. On November 1, 2025, the claimant offered his resignation to the Manager. The Manager asked the claimant to take a few days to decide if he was sure. 
7. The claimant reviewed the information of his internet restriction with the probation officer within a few days (by November 3, 2025). 
8. The claimant chose not to rescind his resignation after speaking with the probation officer. 
9. The employer did not provide information on Unemployment Insurance when the claimant separated from work. The claimant never saw any information posted on the work premises regarding unemployment insurance. 
10. The claimant had filed prior claims with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and had knowledge o[f] how to file for unemployment insurance. 
11. The claimant felt emotionally distraught at that time. The claimant was not under the care or supervision of any medical doctor. 
12. The claimant filed his claim for unemployment benefits with an effective date of November 9, 2025.
13. The claimant requested a predate of his unemployment claim. 
14. On December 5, 2025, a Determination was issued under Section 23(b) of the Law, indicating “We deny your request for back-dated unemployment benefits from the week ending November 1, 2025, to November 8, 2025.” “You gave us your reason for not filing your claim earlier. That reason is not considered a good cause reason for the delay in filing.” The claimant filed an appeal [of] that determination.

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 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 findings of fact and deems them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. However, as discussed more fully below, we reject the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant was not entitled to have his claim pre-dated. 

The legislature enacted G.L. c. 151A, § 62A(g), in order to ensure that workers are informed of the process for seeking unemployment benefits. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

Each employer shall issue to every separated employee, as soon as practicable, but not to exceed 30 days from the last day said employee performed compensable work, written information furnished or approved by said division which shall contain the name and mailing address of the employer, the identification number assigned to the employer by said division, instructions on how to file a claim for unemployment compensation, the address and telephone number of the regional office which serves the recipient, and the telephone number of the teleclaim information line. Delivery is made when an employer provides such information to an employee in person or by mail to the employee’s last known address. The waiting period under section 23 for an employee who did not receive the information required by this paragraph and who failed to file timely for benefits, shall be the Sunday of the initial week such employee would have been eligible to receive unemployment compensation. Each employer shall have the burden of demonstrating compliance with the provisions required herein. (Emphasis added.) 

The review examiner concluded that the claimant had not shown good cause to allow an earlier effective date for his 2025-01 claim because he testified his delay in filing the claim was a result of his emotional distress relating to an ongoing legal matter. See Finding of Fact 11. We disagree with the review examiner’s conclusion, as the impact of the claimant’s emotional distress is immaterial in this case. 

Pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 23(b), 24(c), and 430 CMR 4.01(3) and 4.01(4), a claim effective date may be pre-dated under certain circumstances, if good cause for the delay in reopening the claim is established. However, G.L. c. 151A, § 62A(g), mandates granting a pre-date if the claimant’s former employer does not provide him with written information that has either been furnished or approved by the DUA, and which provides detailed instructions on how to file an unemployment claim. 

The review examiner found the claimant’s previous employer did not provide him with written information about how to file a claim. Finding of Fact 9. Accordingly, the claimant is automatically entitled to have the effective date of his claim made retroactive to the Sunday of the initial week that he would have been eligible for unemployment compensation after he separated from the employer. Because the claimant separated from his employer on November 1, 2025, the Sunday of the initial week he would have been eligible for benefits following his separating is November 2, 2025.  See Consolidated Finding 6. 

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that, pursuant to the requirements of G.L. c. 151A, 
§ 62A(g), the claimant is automatically entitled to have his claim pre-dated. 

The review examiner’s decision is reversed. The claimant is entitled to have the effective date on his 2025-01 claim pre-dated to November 2, 2025. 

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – July 8, 2026

Martha M. Wishart, Esq.
Chair

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.

LSW/rh