IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Karen Wasniewski, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 771 C.D. 2023 

: No. 773 C.D. 2023

 : No. 776 C.D. 2023

Unemployment Compensation : No. 777 C.D. 2023

Board of Review, :

Respondent : Submitted: August 9, 2024

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

PER CURIAM FILED: October 8, 2024

In these consolidated cases, Karen Wasniewski (Claimant), acting pro se, 

petitions for review of the April 19, 2023 orders of the Unemployment Compensation 

Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the referee’s determination that she is 

ineligible for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits for week ending January 2, 

2021, under the relevant provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)

1

and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (CARES Act).

2

 

The Board additionally found that Claimant was issued non-fault overpayments in the 

amount of $217.00 and $300.00 under Section 804(b) of the Law and Section 2104(f) 

of the CARES Act, respectively. For the reasons stated below, Claimant’s petitions for 

review are dismissed as moot.

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 751-919.10.

2

15 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9034. 
2

I. Facts and Procedural History

Claimant began working for the Upper St. Clair School District 

(Employer) as a nutrition worker on February 1, 2010. Claimant first worked as a 

substitute and then transitioned into regular part-time employment on December 14, 

2010. As a school district employee, Claimant worked when school was in session,

but not during school breaks. On July 6, 2017, Employer provided Claimant with a 

Notice of Reasonable Assurance of Continued Employment advising:

Employees of [Employer] will continue to be employed from 

year to year unless notified to the contrary.... If you do not 

receive notice that your position/employment will be 

terminated or modified, then you may be reasonably assured 

that [Employer] intends to retain your services in the same 

capacity for the following school years and after all holiday 

breaks contained therein.

(Certified Record (C.R.) at 72.) 

Claimant applied for UC benefits for the week ending January 2, 2021,

the week of Employer’s Christmas/New Year’s holiday break. On May 3, 2021, the 

Harrisburg UC Service Center (Department) issued a notice of determination that 

Claimant was ineligible to receive UC benefits under Section 402.1(3) of the Law, 

added by Section 5 of the Act of July 6, 1977, 43 P.S. § 802.1 for that week because 

she had a reasonable assurance of continued employment after the holiday break. (C.R. 

at 21.) The Department assessed Claimant a non-fault overpayment of $217.00 in UC 

benefits for week ending January 2, 2021. (C.R. at 236.) The Department issued a 

third determination regarding that same week denying Claimant Federal Pandemic 

Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits. The Department issued a fourth 

determination, assessing a $300.00 non-fraud FPUC overpayment for week ending 

January 2, 2021.
3

Claimant appealed the Department’s orders to a referee, who conducted 

a consolidated hearing on January 18, 2022. The referee concluded that Claimant had 

a reasonable assurance of returning to work after Employer’s holiday break and 

affirmed the Department’s findings in all respects. Claimant appealed to the Board, 

which affirmed the orders of the referee on April 19, 2023.

 These appeals followed. Of significance to our disposition, the Board has 

submitted to this Court a verified statement and supporting documentation averring that 

in December of 2023, the Department wrote off the $300.00 FPUC payment it made to 

Claimant, relieving her of any obligation to repay it. (Appendix E, Verification of 

Maria G. Macus, Deputy Secretary for Unemployment Compensation Programs). 

 II. Discussion3

Claimant’s sole argument on appeal focuses on her inability to repay the

UC and FPUC benefit overpayments because she is on a low fixed income. 

Specifically, Claimant maintains:

I am 80 years old . . . [and] I cannot afford to repay any 

of this amount as my monthly income is very low and I barely 

get my bills paid. I am petitioning this decision as I 

understand the decision of ineligibility, but I am unable to 

pay this money back. None of this was my fault and was not 

done maliciously. . . . Please accept my request to have this 

waived.

3

“This Court’s standard of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights 

were violated, whether an error of law occurred, or whether necessary findings of fact were supported 

by substantial evidence.” Tewell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 279 A.3d 644, 

652 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022).
4

(Claimant’s Br. at 7) (emphasis added). Construing Claimant’s pro se brief liberally,4

we interpret her argument to challenge her legal responsibility to cover the UC and 

FPUC overpayments made to her for the week ending January 2, 2021.

A. Claimant’s Receipt of Regular UC Benefits

We begin by observing that “unemployment compensation benefits for 

services performed in an instructional, research, or principal administrative capacity 

for an educational institution are governed by Section 402.1 of the Law.” Glassmire 

v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 856 A.2d 269, 273 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2004). Section 402.1(3) of the Law denies payment of benefits for

any week which commences during an established and 

customary vacation period or holiday recess if such 

individual performed such services in the period immediately 

before such vacation period or holiday recess, and there is a 

reasonable assurance that such individual will perform such 

services in the period immediately following such vacation 

period or holiday recess.

43 P.S. § 802.1(3). With respect to the UC benefit overpayment made to Claimant, 

Section 804(b) of the Law provides:

(b)(1) Any person who other than by reason of his fault has 

received with respect to a benefit year any sum as 

compensation under this act to which he was not entitled 

shall not be liable to repay such sum but shall be liable to 

have such sum deducted from any future compensation 

payable to him with respect to such benefit year, or the 

three-year period immediately following such benefit 

year, in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph.

4

See Bowen v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 311 A.3d 641, 646 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2024) (noting this Court generally construes pro se filings liberally to assess whether we can reach 

the merits of claim.)
5

43 P.S. § 874(b)(1) (emphasis added). Accordingly, when overcompensation is paid, 

even if the claimant is not at fault, it can be recouped from any future UC benefits paid 

within three years of the benefit year.

Instantly, the Board avers that “Claimant’s benefit year ended as of June 

12, 2021. Therefore, while the $217.00 non-fault regular UC overpayment cannot be 

waived, the Department can only recoup the overpayment against future benefits to 

which Claimant is entitled until June 11, 2024.” (Board’s Br., at 13) (emphasis 

added). Because the June 2024 timeframe for recoupment of the overpayment has 

passed, Claimant’s argument that she is not responsible for that payment is now moot.

Generally, an issue will be dismissed as moot if there exists no actual case 

or controversy. Martinez v. City of Reading Police Department, 289 A.3d 1136, 1140

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2023). The existence of a case or controversy requires a legal controversy

that (1) is real and not hypothetical; (2) affects an individual in a concrete manner so 

as to provide the factual predicate for a reasoned adjudication; and finally, (3) involves

sufficiently adverse parties so as to sharpen the issues for judicial resolution. Id. 

Additionally, “an issue may become moot during the pendency of an appeal due to an 

intervening change in the facts of the case.” Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislative 

Reference Bureau, 318 A.3d 832, 850 (Pa. 2024). Therefore, “a controversy must 

continue through all stages of judicial proceedings, trial and appellate, and the parties 

must continue to have a ‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the lawsuit.” California 

Borough v. Rothey, 185 A.3d 456, 463 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). 

Here, the dispute concerning Claimant’s legal responsibility to cover the 

UC benefit payments made to her for the week ending January 2, 2021, has been 

resolved with the passage of time. The statutory framework at issue provides a builtin three-year deadline for the Department’s ability to recoup overpayment, and that 
6

time period has lapsed in the instant case. In short, the dispute relating to Claimant’s 

receipt of UC benefits did not continue through all stages of these judicial proceedings

and the parties no longer have a personal stake in the outcome of this matter. California 

Borough, 185 A.3d at 463. Accordingly, we dismiss this claim as moot. 

B. Claimant’s Receipt of FPUC Benefits 

We next address the issue of Claimant’s receipt of FPUC benefits in the 

amount of $300.00 for week ending January 2, 2021. Section 2104(b)(1) of the CARES 

Act provides:

(b) Provisions of agreement

(1) Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation

Any agreement under this section shall provide that the State 

agency of the State will make payments of regular 

compensation to individuals in amounts and to the extent that 

they would be determined if the State law of the State were 

applied, with respect to any week for which the individual is 

(disregarding this section) otherwise entitled under the State 

law to receive regular compensation, as if such State law had 

been modified in a manner such that the amount of regular 

compensation (including dependents’ allowances) payable 

for any week shall be equal to--

(A) the amount determined under the State law (before the

application of this paragraph), plus

(B) an additional amount equal to the amount specified in 

paragraph (3) (in this section referred to as “Federal 

Pandemic Unemployment Compensation”)[.]

15 U.S.C. § 9023(b)(1)(A)-(B). 

In the event of FPUC overpayment, Section 2104(f) of the CARES Act 

states: 

(f) Fraud and overpayments
7

. . . . 

(2) Repayment-- In the case of individuals who have 

received amounts of Federal Pandemic Unemployment 

Compensation or Mixed Earner Unemployment 

Compensation to which they were not entitled, the State shall 

require such individuals to repay the amounts of such Federal 

Pandemic Unemployment Compensation or Mixed Earner 

Unemployment Compensation to the State agency, except 

that the State agency may waive such repayment if it 

determines that—

(A) the payment of such Federal Pandemic Unemployment 

Compensation or Mixed Earner Unemployment 

Compensation was without fault on the part of any such 

individual; and

(B) such repayment would be contrary to equity and good 

conscience.

(3) Recovery by State agency

(A) In general-- The State agency shall recover the amount 

to be repaid, or any part thereof, by deductions from any 

Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation or Mixed 

Earner Unemployment Compensation payable to such 

individual or from any unemployment compensation payable 

to such individual under any State or Federal unemployment 

compensation law administered by the State agency or under 

any other State or Federal law administered by the State 

agency which provides for the payment of any assistance or 

allowance with respect to any week of unemployment, 

during the 3-year period after the date such individuals 

received the payment of the Federal Pandemic 

Unemployment Compensation or Mixed Earner 

Unemployment Compensation to which they were not 

entitled, in accordance with the same procedures as apply to 

the recovery of overpayments of regular unemployment 

benefits paid by the State.
8

15 U.S.C. § 9023(f)(2)(A-B), (3)(A). 

Here, as noted, the Board has submitted to this Court a verified statement 

and supporting documentation averring that the Department has written off the $300.00 

FPUC payment made to Claimant, relieving her of any obligation to repay it. 

(Appendix E, Verification of Maria G. Macus). Therefore, there is no longer a live 

case or controversy for this Court to consider with respect to Claimant’s responsibility 

to repay the FPUC benefits she received for week ending January 2, 2021. See 

Martinez, 289 A.3d at 1140. Accordingly, we dismiss Claimant’s petitions for review 

as moot.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Karen Wasniewski, : CONSOLIDATED CASES

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 771 C.D. 2023 

: No. 773 C.D. 2023

: No. 776 C.D. 2023

Unemployment Compensation : No. 777 C.D. 2023

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8

th day of October, 2024, the petitions for review filed 

by Karen Wasniewski in the above-captioned matters are hereby DISMISSED AS 

MOOT.