IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Isaiah Jacobs

, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review

, : No. 459 C.D. 20 22

Respondent : Submitted: March 31 , 202 3

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

Isa iah Jacobs (Claimant)

, pro se , petitions this Court for review of the

Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) March 1 5 , 2022

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

request for reconsideration. The sole issue before this Court is w hether 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 i s 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 w as 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 Claim a nt 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 C enter found C laim a nt 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 de ems an
appeal timely if it is filed within 15 days after the R eferee ’ s decision was mailed

,
and if Claimant believe d 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 believe s 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

appe aled 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
try ing 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 revie w

.

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

natur e).

3 “‘Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitut ional 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 [ R eferee ’ 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. Cm wlth.] 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 a ppeal 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 R eferee 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 in eligibl e 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 state ment 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 dem onstrate 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 bene fits 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.

Mar t tila 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 order s are affirmed.

___________________________ ______ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

5 This Court’s memorandum opinions may only be cited “for [their] persuas ive 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 14 th day of July , 20 2 3

, the Unemployment

Compensation Board of Review’s March 1 5 , 2022 and March 25, 2022 order s are

affirmed.

___________________________ ______ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge