IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David L. Wetzel, :

: No. 1328 C.D. 2015

Petitioner : Submitted: December 24, 2015

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: February 9, 2016

David L. Wetzel (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the June 9, 

2015, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR), 

affirming the decision of a referee to deny Claimant unemployment compensation 

(UC) benefits pursuant to sections 401(c) and 4(w)(2) of the Unemployment 

Compensation Law (Law).

1 The UCBR concluded that Claimant did not make a 

valid application for benefits because he did not have earned wages. We affirm.

Claimant worked for Baldwin Hardware–Black and Decker (Employer) 

until Employer’s plant permanently closed on December 6, 2013. On December 8, 

 

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

§§801(c), 753(w)(2).
2

2013, Claimant filed an application for UC benefits. The local service center issued a 

determination finding Claimant eligible for UC benefits. Upon expiration of that 

benefit year, Claimant filed a new application for UC benefits on December 7, 2014. 

On December 10, 2014, the local service center found Claimant financially eligible 

for UC benefits. On March 10, 2015, Claimant informed the local service center that 

he had not worked since December 6, 2013. On March 11, 2015, the local service 

center issued a second determination disapproving Claimant’s December 7, 2014, 

application because Claimant “did not work and earn six times [his] preceding 

weekly benefit rate (which totals $1938.00) in the period between [his] preceding 

application date and [his] current application date.” (Notice of Determination, 

3/11/15, at 1.) 

Claimant appealed to the referee who conducted a hearing at which 

Claimant testified. The referee found that Claimant “had no earnings after filing his 

2013 application.” (Ref’s Findings of Fact, No. 2.) The referee affirmed the denial 

of UC benefits pursuant to sections 401(c) and 4(w)(2) of the Law. Claimant 

appealed to the UCBR, which adopted and incorporated the referee’s findings of fact 

and conclusions of law and affirmed. Claimant now petitions this court for review.2

Claimant contends that the UCBR erred in failing to consider the 

severance payments he received from Employer as wages. We disagree.

 

2 Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether 

the adjudication is in accordance with the law, and whether the necessary findings of fact are 

supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704.
3

Section 401(c) of the Law provides that “[c]ompensation shall be 

payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed, and who . . . [h]as made a 

valid application for benefits with respect to the benefit year for which compensation

is claimed.” 43 P.S. §801(c).

Section 4(w)(2) of the Law provides that:

[a]n application for benefits filed after the 

termination of a preceding benefit year by an individual 

shall not be considered a Valid Application for Benefits 

within the meaning of this subsection, unless such 

individual has, subsequent to the beginning of such 

preceding benefit year and prior to the filing of such 

application, worked and earned wages in “employment” as 

defined in this act in an amount equal to or in excess of six

(6) times his weekly benefit rate in effect during such 

preceding benefit year. 

43 P.S. §753(w)(2) (emphasis added).

In Joyce v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 548 A.2d 

387, 388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988), this court determined that severance pay was not 

earned and, thus, may not be used to calculate a claimant’s earnings under section 

4(w)(2) of the Law. 

Here, Claimant’s only income during the preceding benefit year came 

from his severance payments. Because severance payments are not earned, Claimant 

did not “work[] and earn[] wages in ‘employment’ . . . during such preceding benefit 

year.” 43 P.S. §753(w)(2). Therefore, the UCBR correctly applied section 4(w)(2) of 

the Law. 
4

Accordingly, we affirm.

___________________________________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David L. Wetzel, :

: No. 1328 C.D. 2015

Petitioner : 

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9

th day of February, 2016, we hereby affirm the June 9, 

2015, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.

___________________________________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge