IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Eric McCord

, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 722 C .D. 201 5

Respondent :

:

:

Eric McCord, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 72 3 C.D. 2015

Respondent : Submitted : October 9, 2015

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORT ED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE COVEY FILED: December 30, 2015

Eric McCord (Claimant) petitions this C ourt, pro se, for review of the

Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) April 3, 2015 order s

dismissing his appeal s from the R efere e’s decision s denying him UC benefits. 1

The reafter, the UCBR filed an application for relief seeking to strik e Claimant’s brief

and dismiss his appeal s

.

1 The UCBR order in decision number B

- 577113 relates to Claimant’s UC benefits. The

UCBR order in decision number B

- 577114 involves Claimant’s eme rgency UC benefits. By June

2, 2015 order, this Court consolidated the appeals.2 Claiman t was employed by Precision Pipeline (Employer) as a full

- t ime

welder helper from October 27 , 2011 through November 1 , 2011

. Employer has a

policy which provides that all employees are expected to be on time and ready to

work each work day at 7:00 a

. m

. unless otherwise advised , and that it is the

employee’ s responsibility to inform the field off ice or foreman as soon as possible if

he or she is unable to report to work at the scheduled time. Claimant signed an

acknowledgement that he received

, and would read and study

, the employee

handbook which contained the attendance policy. Claimant was gr anted leave for the

weekend of October 29 and October 30, 2011, due to his father’ s illness. Claimant

was scheduled to work on October 31 and November 1, 2011. Claimant did not

report to work or contact Employer on October 31 or November 1, 2011. Employ er

discharged Claimant effective November 1, 2011 for Claimant ’ s failure to report to

work or contact Employer on October 31 and November 1, 20 11.

C laimant applied for UC benefits on January 8, 2012. Claimant was

receiving UC benefits until Claimant appli ed for emergency UC (EUC) benefits at

which time Employer filed a request for relief. On January 15, 2013, the Allentown

UC Service Center denied Claimant UC benefits under Section 402(b) of the UC Law

(Law)

, 2 and denied Claimant EUC benefits under Sectio n 4001(b) of the EUC Act of

2008. 3 C laimant appealed and

, on March 15, 2013, a Referee hearing was held. On

March 19, 2013, the Referee affirmed the UC Service Center’s determination as

modified, denying Claimant UC benefits under Section 402(e) of the L aw, 4 and

affirm ing the UC Service C en t er’s decision relating to Claimant’s ineligibility for

E UC benefits. C laimant appeal ed from the Referee’s decision to the UCBR by fax

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

, 43 P.S. §

802(b) ( relating to voluntary employment termination ).

3 Title IV of the Supplemental Appro priation Act of 2008, P.L. 110

– 252, 122 Stat. 2353,

Section 400 1 (b), 26 U.S.C. § 3304 Note.

4 43 P.S. § 802(e) (relating to willful misconduct).3

on February 2, 2015

, 23 months later

. A remand hearing was held on March 16, 2015

and o n April 3, 2015, the UCBR dismissed Claimant’s appeal s as untimely. Claimant

appealed to this Court. 5

T he UCBR filed a motion to strike Claimant’s brief and dismiss his

appeal s because the sole issue is one of timeliness which Claimant failed to pr eserve

for appeal by not raising the timeliness issue in his brief. “ While this Court is

generally inclined to construe pro se filings liberally, . . . ‘ [ a ]ny lay person who

chooses to represent himself in a legal proceeding must assume the risk that his lack

of expertise and legal training may prove to be his undoing. ’” Means v. Housing

Auth

. of City of Pittsburgh, 747 A.2d 1286, 1289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (quoting Daly

v. Unemployment Comp

. Bd

. of Review, 631 A.2d 720, 722 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) ).

Pennsylvani a Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 provides:

Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material

respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the

circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise

they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief

or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial,

the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed

.

P a .R.A.P

. 2 10 1 (emphasis added)

.

Here, Claimant appealed from the UCBR’s order s which dismiss ed his

appe al s as untimely. However, in his brief

, Claimant argue d only the merits of the

Referee’ s decision s , which were not addressed by the UCBR and , thus, are not before

us on appeal. 6 Specifically, Claimant’s “Statement of Questions Involved” include:

5 “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 Review , 83 A.3d 484, 486 n.2 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2014).

6 Although Claimant alleges reasons for the untimeliness of his appeal in his Petition for

Review,

his failure to address the issue in his brief leads to our conclusion that

the issue has been abandoned and therefore waived. See Jimoh v.4

“1. Whet her [Claimant] quit or what caused the separation[ ; and] 2. Whether

[C]laimant was separated due to a car accident.” Claimant B r. at 6. Further,

Claimant’s argument in its entirety is as follows:

In 2011, the Pennsylvania [UC] [sic] reported that

[C] laim ant voluntarily quit. I’ ve filed appeals to the

[UCBR] and sent the letters I have received from

[Employer]

. [Employer] even faxed letters stating it was

their mistake and please adjust the records. The last hearing

I had from the

. . . Referee and [Emp loyer’s] payroll

specialist should have changed the decision [sic]

. [Employer] told the [R] eferee that in fact it was their

mistake and corrected it. The [C] ourt should have a copy of

that recording.

Claimant Br. at 9.

It is clear that Claimant has “ waived . . . [the timeliness argument]

because it was not presented in the statement of the issues nor in the argument

section [] of Claimant’s brief and was not raised as an issue on appeal from the

[R]eferee’ s order [s]

. ” Kilker v. Workmen’ s Comp

. Appeal Bd

. (E.J. Rogan & Sons),

667 A.2d 1215 , 1216 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)

. “ Claimant’ s failure to adhere to the

rules of appellate procedure and his failure to raise any issues within our scope of

review preclude any meaningful review by this Court. ” Daly , 631 A.2d at 722.

Accordingly

, we must dismiss Claimant’s appeal

. Id.

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 902 A.2d 608

(Pa.Cmwlth.2006) ; McDonough v. Unemploymen t Comp. Bd. of

Review, 670 A.2d 749 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996); Tyler v. Unemployment

Comp. Bd. of Review,

. . . 591 A.2d 1164 ( [Pa.Cmwlth.] 1991) (Issues

raised but not briefed are waived).

Tracy v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 23 A.2d 612, 616 n.3 (Pa. Cmwl th. 2011).5 For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s application for relief to strike

Claimant’s brief and dismiss his appeal s is granted.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Jud geIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Eric McCord, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 722 C.D. 2015

Respondent :

:

:

Eric McCord, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 723 C.D. 2015

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 30 th day of December , 201 5

, the Unemployment

Compensation Board of Review’s Application for R elief is GRANTED, and the

appeal s in th e above

- captioned matter s are DISMISSED.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge