IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Nadine I. Lex, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 986 C.D. 2015

: Submitted: October 2, 2015

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: October 23, 2015

Nadine I. Lex (Claimant) petitions pro se for review of the order of 

the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the decision 

of the Unemployment Compensation Referee (Referee) finding Claimant’s appeal 

untimely under Section 501(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation 

Law (Law).1 Finding no error in the Board’s decision, we affirm.

 

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

§821(e). Section 501(e) of the Law provides:

Unless the claimant or last employer or base-year employer of the 

claimant files an appeal with the board, from the determination 

contained in any notice required to be furnished by the department 

under section five hundred and one (a), (c) and (d), within fifteen 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
2

Claimant was employed by The Hershey Company (Employer) and 

filed for unemployment compensation benefits upon separation, effective 

December 28, 2014. On December 30, 2014, Claimant updated her address with

the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (Department).2 On February 

2, 2015, the Scranton Unemployment Compensation Service Center (Service 

Center) mailed Claimant by first-class mail its determination disqualifying her 

from benefits because she had not registered for employment search services at 

www.jobgateway.pa.gov. This determination was sent to the updated address and 

notified Claimant that the final day to file a valid appeal of the determination was 

February 17, 2015. The mailing was not returned as undeliverable.

On March 2, 2015, Claimant appealed to the Referee and a hearing 

was ordered to determine whether the appeal was timely. Before the Referee,

 

(continued...)

calendar days after such notice was delivered to him personally, or 

was mailed to his last known post office address, and applies for a 

hearing, such determination of the department, with respect to the 

particular facts set forth in such notice, shall be final and 

compensation shall be paid or denied in accordance therewith. 

(Emphasis added).

If an appeal is not filed within 15 days of mailing, the determination becomes final and the Board 

is without jurisdiction to consider the matter. Roman–Hutchinson v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 972 A.2d 1286, 1288 n. 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).

2 We note, though, that on January 19, 2015, Claimant received a warning letter at her old 

address that if she did not register on the www.jobgateway.pa.gov website that she would be 

disqualified from benefits beginning the week ending January 31, 2015. All other notices were 

sent to her updated address.
3

Claimant testified that her untimely appeal was due to her not having received the 

Service Center’s determination. Claimant testified that she lived at her address on 

record for five years and had not had any other difficulty with receiving her mail. 

She further testified that she only found out about her disqualification from 

benefits when she went to file her claim online sometime in January 2015.

The Referee dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely because it was 

filed more than 15 days as provided for in Section 501(e), which is mandatory, and 

he had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed after the expiration of the statutory 

period. Claimant appealed to the Board which affirmed the Referee’s dismissal of 

Claimant’s appeal, finding that the Service Center’s determination was mailed to 

Claimant’s correct address and not returned as undeliverable, so it is presumed that 

Claimant received the determination, which discredits her assertions. This appeal 

followed.3

In her appeal, Claimant again argues that she did not receive the 

Service Center’s determination mailed to her and that there was no proof of 

delivery. The 15-day time limit set forth in Section 501(e) of the Law is 

mandatory and subject to strict application. Vereb v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 676 A.2d 1290, 1292 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). 

However, a nunc pro tunc appeal may be permitted in extraordinary circumstances 

involving fraud, administrative breakdown or non-negligent conduct either by a 

 

3 Our scope of review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether an error 

of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated, or whether the necessary findings of 

fact are supported by substantial evidence. Rock v. Unemployment Compensation Board of 

Review, 6 A.3d 646, 648 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
4

third party or by a claimant. Mountain Home Beagle Media v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 955 A.2d 484, 487 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Merely 

claiming that a notice was not received, however, is not a sufficient reason for 

extending the time for appeal. ATM Corporation of America v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 892 A.2d 859, 864 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Where a 

notice is mailed to a claimant’s last known mailing address and is not returned by 

the postal service authorities as undeliverable, the claimant is presumed to have 

received the notice and is barred from attempting to appeal after the expiration of 

the appeal period. Id. (citing Mihelic v. Unemployment Compensation Board of 

Review, 399 A.2d 825, 827 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979)).

Here, because the Service Center mailed the notice of determination 

to Claimant at her current address, where she has lived for the past five years, and 

the notice was not returned as undeliverable, Claimant is presumed to have 

received the notice. The only evidence offered to overcome this presumption was 

Claimant’s testimony that she did not receive the notice, which the Board found 

incredible. Without evidence of extraordinary circumstances, the Board properly 

found that Claimant’s appeal was untimely.

Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.

_________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Nadine I. Lex, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 986 C.D. 2015

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 23rd day of October, 2015, the order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated May 6, 2015, at No. B578151, is affirmed.

_________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge