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 Wa sniewski (Claimant) , acting pro se , petition s for review of the April 19 , 202 3 order s of the Unemployment Compensation

Board of Review ( Board ), which affirmed the r eferee’s d etermination 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 overpayment s in the

amount of $ 217.00 and $300.00 under Section 8 04 (b) of the Law and Section 2104 (f)

of the CARES A ct , respectively. For the reasons stated below, Claimant’s petition s 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 int o regular part

- time employ ment on December 14,

201 0

. A s a school district employee, Claimant worked when school was in session

,

b ut 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 year s 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 S ection 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

s he 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 deter mination regarding that same week denying Claimant Federal Pandemic

Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) b enefits

. The Department issued a fourth

determination

, assessing a $300.00 non

- fraud FPUC overpayment for week ending

January 2, 2021

.3 Claimant appealed th e Depart ment’s orders to a r eferee, who conducted

a consolidated hearing on January 18, 2022. The r eferee concluded that C laimant 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 refer ee on April 19, 2023

.

Th ese appeal s followed. O f significance to our disposition

, the Board has

submitted to this Co urt a verified statement and supporting docu mentation 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. Discussion 3

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

UC and FPUC benefit overpayment s 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. C mwlth. 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 Benefit s

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 Comp ensation B oard of Re view , 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 th e 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 Comp ensation B oard of Rev iew , 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 overpaymen t 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 t he June 2024 timeframe for recoupment of the overpayment has

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

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

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

(Pa. C mwlth. 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

. I d.

Additionally, “ a n 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. C mwlth. 2018).

Here

, the dispute concerning Claimant’s l egal responsibility to cover th e

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 built

in three

- year deadline for the Department’s ability to re coup overpayment

, and that6

time period has lapsed in th e 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 sec tion) 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 overpayments7

. . . .

(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 payabl e 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

al lowance 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

, t he 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 petition s 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 petitio ns for review filed

by Karen Wasniewski in the above

- captioned matter s are hereby DISMISSED AS

MOOT

.