IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Isaiah Jacobs, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 459 C.D. 2022

Respondent : Submitted: March 31, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: July 14, 2023

Isaiah Jacobs (Claimant), pro se, petitions this Court for review of the 

Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) March 15, 2022 

order dismissing his appeal as untimely, and March 25, 2022 order denying his 

request for reconsideration. The sole issue before this Court is whether the UCBR 

properly dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely.1 After review, this Court affirms.

1

In his Statement of Questions Involved, Claimant presented four issues: 

1. Why is there no way to argue that I did not quit my job 

voluntarily? The [UCBR] dismissed my appeal as untimely and also 

denied reconsideration without reasoning.

2. Why did the [UCBR] dismiss my reconsideration request without 

any explanation? The [UCBR] did not answer my question.

3. Why did the [UCBR] side with the employer (Veteran 

[T]ransportation [X Press]) when they never submitted any facts that 

back there [sic] claim I was terminated [sic] for misconduct or 

attended any referee hearings? The [UCBR] dismissed my claim as 

a voluntary quit.
2

Veteran’s Transportation X Press (Employer) employed Claimant as a 

full-time package delivery driver from August 18, 2020 to October 25, 2020. On 

November 15, 2020, Claimant filed an application for UC benefits. On February 16, 

2021, the Altoona UC Service Center found Claimant ineligible for UC benefits 

under Section 402(b) of the UC Law (Law).2 Claimant appealed from the UC 

Service Center’s determination and a Referee held a hearing. On April 27, 2021, the 

Referee affirmed the UC Service Center’s determination. On May 20, 2021, 

Claimant appealed to the UCBR. 

On July 19, 2021, the UCBR notified Claimant that the Law deems an 

appeal timely if it is filed within 15 days after the Referee’s decision was mailed, 

and if Claimant believed that he filed his appeal within the 15-day period or that it 

should be deemed timely for other reasons, he must request a hearing to allow him 

to set forth his reasons why he believes his appeal was timely filed. On July 21, 

2021, Claimant requested a hearing. On February 10, 2022, a Referee held a hearing. 

On March 15, 2022, the UCBR dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely. Claimant 

appealed to this Court.3

4. Why is my [d]epression not being treated not [sic] as a mental 

illness and or my request for part[-]time hours not considered as 

trying to retain employment. The [UCBR] did not answer my 

question.

Claimant Br. at 5. Because the UCBR dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely, it did not address 

the above-quoted issues and therefore the issues are not properly before this Court for review.

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

802(b) (referring to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling 

nature).

3

“‘Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were 

violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported 

by substantial evidence.’ Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev[.], 83 A.3d 484, 486 n.2 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2014).” Talty v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 197 A.3d 842, 843 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2018).
3

Initially,

Section 502 of the Law gives a party “[15] days after the 

date of a [Referee’s] decision” to appeal, 43 P.S. § 822, 

and this deadline is strictly applied. This Court holds 

routinely that “failure to file an appeal within [15] days, 

without an adequate excuse for the late filing, mandates 

dismissal of the appeal.” [U.S.] Postal Serv[.] v. 

Unemployment Comp[.] [Bd.]of Rev[.], . . . 620 A.2d 572, 

573 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1993). Nevertheless, our Supreme 

Court has held that a breakdown in the administrative 

process is an adequate excuse for an untimely filing.

Carson Helicopters, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 960 A.2d 524, 527 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

If an appeal is not filed within [15] days of the 

determination’s mailing date, the UCBR and its referees 

do not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case. 

The statutory time limit for filing an appeal is mandatory 

in the absence of fraud or manifestly wrong or negligent 

conduct of the administrative authorities, and the claimant 

bears a heavy burden to justify an untimely appeal. 

Roman-Hutchinson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 972 A.2d 1286, 1288 n.1

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citation omitted).

Here, Claimant testified at the Referee hearing that he did not timely 

appeal because he received two Referee decisions on the same date, one which stated 

that he was eligible for UC benefits and one which stated that he was ineligible for 

UC benefits. See Certified Record (C.R.) at 119. He further related that as soon as 

he contacted a UC representative, he filed his appeal.

4

 See C.R. at 121. When 

4 Claimant states in his brief that he “[w]as advised by a[] [UC] employee to wait for a call 

back to see why [he] was receiving payment with two different decisions.” Claimant Br. at 6. 

However, upon review of the Referee hearing transcript, Claimant did not make such a statement 

or any similar statement at the Referee hearing. “It is well settled that this Court may not consider 

extra-record evidence that is not part of the certified record on appeal.” Brown v. Unemployment 

Comp. Bd. of Rev., 276 A.3d 322, 331 n.13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). Accordingly, this Court cannot 

consider Claimant’s only allegation about an administrative breakdown which is contained in his 

brief, i.e., someone told him to wait and see, because it is not in the record.
4

questioned by the Referee, Claimant reported that he had two separate Referee 

hearings. See C.R. at 120. Given the fact that Claimant had two different Referee 

hearings, it was reasonable for him to receive two different decisions.

Claimant does not demonstrate how receiving two

[Referee decisions] . . . - one which found him eligible for 

benefits and one which found him ineligible - amounts to 

an administrative breakdown. Because he admits that 

he received the [decision] finding him ineligible for 

benefits under Section 402([b]) of the Law, Claimant was 

not misled by the [UC] Service Center, but only by his own 

failure to read all documents sent to him. 

Marttila v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 2185 C.D. 2011, 

filed May 31, 2012), slip op. at 5 (emphasis added).

5

 Consequently, Claimant has 

not met his “heavy burden to justify an untimely appeal.” Roman-Hutchinson, 972 

A.2d at 1288 n.1. Accordingly, the UCBR properly dismissed Claimant’s appeal as 

untimely.6

For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s orders are affirmed.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

5 This Court’s memorandum opinions may only be cited “for [their] persuasive value, but 

not as binding precedent.” Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal Operating 

Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). This Court cites Marttila for its persuasive value.

6 Because the UCBR properly dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely, the UCBR did not 

err by denying Claimant’s reconsideration request.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Isaiah Jacobs, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 459 C.D. 2022

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2023, the Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review’s March 15, 2022 and March 25, 2022 orders are 

affirmed.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge