IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Barbara Wille, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1189 C.D. 2021

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent : Submitted: March 10, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE CEISLER FILED: April 19, 2023

Barbara Wille (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the September 30, 

2021 Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying 

her request for reconsideration. Because the record shows that the Board entered the

September 30, 2021 Order inadvertently, and because the Board has not yet 

adjudicated Claimant’s underlying appeal from the Referee’s decision, we vacate 

the Board’s September 30, 2021 Order, dismiss Claimant’s Petition for Review, and 

remand this matter to the Board for consideration of the merits of Claimant’s appeal.

Background

On May 10, 2020, Claimant filed an application for pandemic unemployment 

assistance (PUA) benefits with the Department of Labor and Industry (Department). 

Record (R.) Item No. 1. On October 29, 2020, the Department issued four separate 

decisions, denying her PUA claims on the basis that “[Claimant is] a landlord and 

not subject to qualify for PUA benefits under Section 2102[](a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the 
2

[Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (CARES Act), 15 

U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)],” and assessing non-fraud overpayments of PUA and 

federal pandemic unemployment compensation benefits. Claimant’s Br., Exs. 006 

and 047. On September 27, 2021, after a hearing, the Referee issued separate orders

affirming the Department’s decisions and assessing an additional $7,939 non-fraud

overpayment of PUA benefits under Section 2102(h) of the CARES Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 9021(h). R. Item No. 8.

On September 27, 2021, the same day the Referee issued her decisions, 

Claimant sought to “[r]e-open” Referee Case Number 2021015249-AT and 

requested that the $7,939 non-fraud overpayment “be reconsidered based on the 

premise that I am a hospitality worker and not a landlord.” Suppl. R. Item No. 1. 

This request, however, was treated as an appeal to the Board and was docketed as

Board Appeal Number 2021001948-BR. R. Item No. 9.1

At this point, the procedural history took an unusual turn. Three days after 

Claimant sought to re-open the record, which was treated as an appeal, the Board’s 

new electronic PUA claims system allowed Claimant to prematurely seek

reconsideration – even though the Board had not yet issued a decision – and then 

automatically generated an order on September 30, 2021, purportedly denying 

Claimant’s request for reconsideration. See Bd.’s Br., Apps. A and B; Suppl. R. 

Item No. 2.

2

 Claimant then filed an appeal with this Court from the Board’s 

September 30, 2021 Order.

1

In addition to the present matter involving Board Appeal Number 2021001948-BR, 

Claimant has three other appeals pending before the Board. See Bd.’s Br., App. B.

2 The Board’s September 30, 2021 Order is not signed by any Board member; rather, the 

conclusion of the Order reads as follows:

(Footnote continued on next page...)
3

Thereafter, the Board filed a Motion to Quash Claimant’s Petition for Review, 

asserting that its September 30, 2021 Order was entered erroneously and had no legal 

effect because the Board had not yet ruled on Claimant’s appeal from the Referee’s 

September 27, 2021 decision. On April 26, 2022, this Court, in a per curiam

Memorandum and Order, denied the Motion to Quash, concluding as follows:

The Board . . . seeks to quash [Claimant’s] petition for review to 

this Court on the basis that its September 30, 2021 order denying 

reconsideration “has no legal effect[,]” in that the Board has not yet 

ruled on [Claimant’s] underlying appeal from the Referee; thus, the 

Board claims, its order is not appealable. However, because a Board 

order denying reconsideration is generally an appealable order, see

Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 A.3d 

875[, 876-77] (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), and it further appearing that 

[Claimant] has timely petitioned this Court for review of the Board’s 

order denying reconsideration in this case, the Court declines to quash 

[the] petition for review based upon the unverified allegations asserted 

in the Board’s Motion. See Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

123(c), Pa.R.A.P. 123(c) (“[a]n application . . . which sets forth facts 

which do not already appear of record shall be verified by some person 

having knowledge of the facts . . .”).

Wille v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1189 C.D. 2021, filed 

Apr. 26, 2022), slip op. at 3-4 (emphasis added).

Subsequently, the Board submitted to this Court a Verification, dated October 

11, 2022, prepared by Brian L. Parr, the Board’s Unemployment Compensation

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW

##BOARDCHAIRMAN##, chairman

##BOARDMEMBER1##, member

##BOARDMEMBER2##, member

Suppl. R. Item No. 2 (bold in original; italics added). The September 30, 2021 Order also purports 

to deny reconsideration of “the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review 

(Board), Docket Number 2021015249-AT mailed on 9/27/2021,” which is actually the Referee’s

order from which Claimant appealed. Id.; see R. Item No. 8.
4

Appeals System Administrator. Bd.’s Br., App. B. In the Verification, Mr. Parr 

states:

1. The [Board] has not issued an adjudication regarding Claimant’s 

appeal from the Referee’s decision in Board Appeal N[umber]

2021001948-BR which is the current matter before the Court in . . .

1189 C.D. 2021.

2. The [Board] also has not issued adjudications regarding Claimant’s 

related appeals from the Referee’s decisions in Board Appeal 

N[umbers] 2021001935-BR, 2021001936-BR, and 2021001937-BR.

3. The [Department’s] PUA Claims System mistakenly allowed 

Claimant to access the “Request Reconsideration” function

prematurely. Claimant did so on September 27, 2021, when she 

requested to re-open the matter in Board Appeal N[umber]

2021001948-BR. The Department’s PUA Claims System then 

automatically generated the Order dated September 30, 2021, in error 

denying Claimant’s purported request for reconsideration.

4. This problem with the Request Reconsideration function has 

subsequently been fixed.

Id.

Analysis

In her appellate brief, Claimant argues only the merits of her appeal, asserting,

inter alia, that she is entitled to PUA benefits because “she is a business owner [and] 

not a landlord” under the CARES Act. Claimant’s Br. at 8. In response, the Board 

maintains that Claimant’s appeal should be dismissed because the Board has not 

issued a final adjudication in her underlying appeal from the Referee’s decision and, 

thus, this Court has nothing to review. We agree with the Board.

As we stated in our prior Memorandum Opinion, ordinarily the Board’s denial 

of a request for reconsideration is an appealable order. See Wille, slip op. at 3 (citing 
5

Williams, 125 A.3d at 876-77). However, a reconsideration request can only be 

made by an “aggrieved party,” and the Board can only rule upon such a request after 

it has issued a “decision” from which the party is aggrieved. See 34 Pa. Code § 

101.111(a) (providing that an “aggrieved party may request the Board to reconsider 

its decision and if allowed, to grant further the opportunity to” present additional 

evidence at a remand hearing, submit written or oral argument, or ask the Board to 

reconsider the previously established record evidence).

Moreover, “[i]f [an] agency action is not an ‘adjudication[,]’[] then it is not 

subject to judicial review by way of appeal.” Phila. Cnty. Med. Soc’y v. Kaiser, 699 

A.2d 800, 806 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (en banc); see Section 101 of the Administrative 

Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 101 (defining “[a]djudication” as “[a]ny final order, 

decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or 

property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of any or all 

of the parties to the proceeding in which the adjudication is made”) (emphasis 

added).

Here, the record establishes that: (1) the Board inadvertently issued the

September 30, 2021 Order denying reconsideration due to a computer system glitch; 

and (2) the Board did not issue an adjudication in Appeal Number 2021001948-BR

from which reconsideration could have been granted or denied. Indeed, in its 

appellate brief, the Board asserts that it “is awaiting a resolution of the current matter 

before this Court before issuing its adjudications in the four related appeals from 

which Claimant would have appeal rights to this . . . Court if she is aggrieved.” Bd.’s 

Br. at 9. 

We conclude that because the Board never ruled on Claimant’s underlying 

appeal from the Referee’s decision, its Order denying reconsideration has no legal 
6

effect and is, therefore, a nullity. See Goldstein v. State Horse Racing Comm’n, 557 

A.2d 1183, 1186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (dismissing an appeal filed from a null and 

void order); see also Com. v. Greene, 265 A.3d 798, 800 (Pa. Super. 2021) (stating 

that “a legally-null order renders an appeal taken therefrom likewise legally null”), 

aff’d, 284 A.3d 451 (Pa. 2022).

Conclusion

The record establishes that the Board’s September 30, 2021 Order denying

reconsideration was inadvertently entered prior to the Board’s ruling on Claimant’s 

appeal from the Referee’s decision; therefore, the Order is a legal nullity. 

Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s September 30, 2021 Order, dismiss Claimant’s 

Petition for Review, and remand this matter to the Board for consideration of the 

merits of Claimant’s appeal.

____________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Barbara Wille, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1189 C.D. 2021

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2023, this Court hereby: (1) VACATES 

the September 30, 2021 Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of 

Review (Board); (2) DISMISSES Barbara Wille’s (Claimant) Petition for Review; 

and (3) REMANDS this matter to the Board for consideration of the merits of 

Claimant’s appeal.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge