IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Adrian Lee Canty, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2310 C.D. 2015

: No. 2487 C.D. 2015

Unemployment Compensation : Submitted: May 27, 2016

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE BROBSON FILED: July 28, 2016 

Petitioner Adrian Lee Canty (Claimant), acting pro se, petitions for 

review of two orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review 

(Board). The Board affirmed as modified an Unemployment Compensation 

Referee’s (Referee) decisions, in which the Referee concluded that Claimant was

ineligible for both unemployment compensation benefits under Section 401(c) of 

the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1and emergency unemployment 

compensation (EUC) benefits under Section 4001(b) of the Emergency 

 

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

§ 801(c). 
2

Unemployment Compensation Act of 20082(EUC Act). The Board also affirmed

the Referee’s imposition of a fault overpayment pursuant to Section 804(a) of the 

Law3in the amount of $3,720, as well as imposing a fraud overpayment pursuant 

to Section 4005(a) of the EUC Act

4

in the amount of $3,810. We now affirm.

 

2

Title IV of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-252, 

122 Stat. 2323, 26 U.S.C. § 3304 note. EUC benefits are federally funded and were created by 

Congress pursuant to the EUC Act of 2008. McKenna v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 

981 A.2d 415, 417 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). The EUC benefits programs are administered by the 

states. Id. In Pennsylvania, unemployed claimants who are not eligible for regular 

unemployment compensation benefits from Pennsylvania, another state, the federal government, 

or Canada may be eligible for EUC benefits. Id. Eligibility requirements for receipt of regular 

unemployment compensation benefits are also applicable to EUC benefits, along with additional 

requirements imposed by the EUC Act of 2008. Id. 

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

§ 874(a). Section 804 of the Law provides that a claimant who, by reason of fault, receives 

unemployment compensation benefits to which the claimant is not entitled must repay the 

amount he or she received with interest.

4

Title IV of the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-252, 

122 Stat. 2323, 26 U.S.C. § 3304 note. Section 4005 of the EUC Act, relating to fraud 

overpayments, provides in relevant part:

(a) IN GENERAL.—If an individual knowingly has made . . . a false 

statement or representation of a material fact, . . . and as a result of such 

false statement or representation or of such nondisclosure such individual 

has received an amount of emergency unemployment compensation under 

this title to which such individual was not entitled, such individual—

(1) Shall be ineligible for further emergency unemployment 

compensation under this title in accordance with the provisions of 

the applicable State unemployment compensation law relating to 

fraud in connection with a claim for unemployment compensation; 

. . .

(b) REPAYMENT.—In the case of individuals who have received 

amounts of emergency unemployment compensation under this title to 

which they were not entitled, the State shall require such individuals to 

repay the amounts of such emergency unemployment compensation to the 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
3

The record shows that, on March 31, 2011, unemployment 

compensation authorities (UC authorities) received a claim for unemployment 

compensation benefits purportedly filed by Claimant, which UC authorities 

granted. (Certified Record (C.R.) Item No. 1.) Thereafter, UC authorities 

continued to receive and pay bi-weekly claims filed in Claimant’s name. (Id.) 

During the relevant time period when UC authorities received these claims for 

benefits, Claimant was employed by the Philadelphia Corp. for the Aging 

(Employer), where she remained employed until April of 2012. (Id.) Claimant 

was earning wages while employed, yet the claims for benefits indicated that 

Claimant had no earnings. (Id.) In addition, UC authorities also received and paid 

claims for EUC benefits later in the year 2011. (Id.) 

From June 15, 2015, to June 25, 2015, the Harrisburg UC Overflow 

Center (Service Center) issued Claimant a total of six notices of determinations. 

(C.R., Item No. 4.) Three of those determinations, issued on June 15, 2015: 

(1) denied Claimant unemployment compensation benefits for the weeks ending 

June 11, 2011, through September 17, 2011; (2) established a fault overpayment in 

the amount of $3,720, pursuant to Section 804(a) of the Law; and (3) denied

Claimant eligibility for EUC benefits beginning compensable week ending 

September 24, 2011, through December 31, 2011, pursuant to Section 4001(b) of 

 

(continued...)

State agency, except that the State agency may waive such repayment if it 

determines that—

(1) The payment of such emergency unemployment 

compensation was without fault on the part of any such individual; 

and 

(2) Such repayment would be contrary to equity and good 

conscience.
4

the EUC Act. (Id.) Two more determinations, issued on 

June 16, 2015: (1) established a fraud overpayment in the amount of $3,810,

pursuant to Section 4005 of the EUC Act; and (2) assessed a seventeen-week 

penalty period due to the EUC overpayment with an accompanying penalty 

of 15% of the EUC overpayment, totaling $571.50. (Id.) Lastly, the sixth and 

final determination, issued June 25, 2015, assessed a seventeen-week penalty 

period due to the unemployment compensation overpayment received and imposed

a penalty of 15% of the unemployment compensation overpayment,

totaling $558, pursuant to Sections 801(b) and 801(c) of the Law,

5

respectively. 

(Id.)

On June 22, 2015, and June 25, 2015, Claimant filed two separate 

appeals—one for the determinations relating to unemployment compensation

benefits and the other for the determinations relating to the EUC benefits received. 

(C.R., Item Nos. 6-7.) A Referee consolidated these appeals and conducted a 

hearing on July 14, 2015. (C.R., Item No. 8.) Claimant challenged the 

determinations largely by asserting that she did not recall filing for the benefits at 

issue. (Id.) Following the hearing, the Referee issued two decisions and orders. 

(C.R., Item No. 11.) In the first decision and order, which related solely to 

unemployment compensation benefits, the Referee affirmed the Service Center’s 

denial of unemployment compensation benefits and also affirmed the Service 

Center’s determination of a fault overpayment in the amount of $3,720, with an 

accompanying 15% penalty, totaling $558. (C.R., Item No. 11.) The Referee, 

 

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

§§ 871(b) and (c).
5

however, modified the determination by removing the seventeen-week penalty 

period. (Id.) In doing so, the Referee issued the following findings of fact:

1. The claimant filed an initial claim for 

Unemployment Compensation benefits with an 

effective date of March 13, 2011.

2. The claimant’s weekly benefit rate is $254 and her 

partial benefit credit is $102. 

3. During the below listed weeks the claimant was 

employed by Philadelphia Corp for the Aging. 

4. When filing for Unemployment Compensation 

benefits for compensable weeks ending 

June 11, 2011 through September 17, 2011 the 

claimant reported $0 earnings to the UC Service 

Center. 

5. The claimant had actual and potential earnings for 

compensable weeks ending June 11, 2011 through 

September 11, 2011 in amount[s] which ranged 

from $658 per week to $658.03 per week. 

6. The claimant was, or should have been, aware that 

she was required to report her earnings to the UC 

Service Center when filing for benefits for the 

weeks at issue in this appeal.

(Id.) 

In concluding that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment 

compensation benefits and that a penalty was proper, the Referee reasoned, in part:

By failing to report her earnings to the UC Service 

Center the claimant failed to file a valid claim for 

benefits. Accordingly, benefits for compensable weeks 

ending June 11, 2011 through September 17, 2011 are 

disallowed in accordance with Section 401(c) of the Law. 

Because the claimant is ineligible for benefits for the 

weeks at issue in this appeal she has an overpayment in 

the amount of $248 per week for compensable weeks 
6

ending June 11, 2011 through September 17, 2011 for a 

total overpayment in the amount of $3,720. The Referee 

is in agreement with the UC Service Center that the 

claimant’s overpayment be recouped in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 804(a) of the Law. 

In addition, the claimant shall be assessed a 15% penalty 

in the amount of $558 in accordance with Section 801(c). 

However, no penalty weeks shall be assessed and 

Section 801(b) of the Law is inapplicable.

(Id.) 

In the second decision and order, pertaining solely to EUC benefits, 

the Referee affirmed the Service Center’s denial of EUC benefits and also affirmed 

the Service Center’s determination of a fraud overpayment in the amount 

of $3,810. (C.R., Item No. 11.) The Referee, however, modified the determination 

by removing the 15% overpayment penalty totaling $571.50 and seventeen-week

penalty period. (Id.) In doing so, the Referee issued the following findings of fact:

1. On July 17, 2015 a Referee’s Decision/Order 

appeal number 15-09-I-1321 was issued which 

affirmed the UC Service Center determinations by 

denying benefits to the claimant under 

Section 401(c) of the Law and assessing the 

claimant an overpayment and a 15% penalty in 

accordance with Sections 804(a) and 801(c) of the 

Law.

2. As a result, the claimant has not exhausted all of 

her rights to regular UC benefits. 

(Id.) The Referee reasoned:

As outlined in the findings of fact of this decision, a 

Referee’s Decision/Order was issued which affirmed UC 

Service Center determination by denying benefits to the 

claimant in accordance with Section 401(c) of the Law 

and assessing the claimant an overpayment and 

a 15% penalty in accordance with Sections 804(a) and 

801(c). Accordingly, the claimant has not exhausted all 

of her rights to regular UC benefits and is ineligible for 
7

EUC benefits for compensable weeks ending 

September 24, 2011 through December 31, 2011 in 

accordance with Section 4001(b) of the EUC Act.

Because the claimant is ineligible for EUC benefits for 

the weeks at issue in this appeal she has an overpayment 

in the amount of $254 per week for compensable weeks 

ending September 24, 2011 through 

December 31, 2011 for a total overpayment in the 

amount of $3,810.

The Referee is in agreement with the UC Service Center 

that the claimant’s overpayment be recouped in 

accordance with the fraud provisions of the EUC Act.

However, the Referee will not impose penalty weeks or 

a 15% penalty. Accordingly, Sections 4005(a)(1) of the 

EUC Act and Sections 801(b) and 801(c) of the PA UC 

Law are inapplicable.

(Id.)

Claimant appealed to the Board. The Board modified and affirmed, 

adopting the Referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and incorporating 

them into its decision. (C.R., Item No. 13.) As to the Referee’s decision regarding 

unemployment compensation benefits, the Board affirmed the denial of benefits in 

addition to affirming the fault overpayment in the amount of $3,720. (Id.) The 

Board, however, modified the decision by removing the imposition of 

the 15% overpayment penalty totaling $558.6 (Id.) As to the Referee’s decision 

 

6

The Board found the 15% penalty pursuant to Section 801(c) of the Law to be 

inapplicable. The Board stated as follows: 

“Clearly, an overt misrepresentation made by the claimant that he [sic] was not 

working when he [sic] earned wages is the basis for a fault overpayment. 

However, the additional 15% monetary penalty under Section 801(c) of the Law 

was not in place when these claims were filed. Section 801(c) was added to the 

Law by [the Act of October 23, 2013, P.L. 637], effective October [23], 2013. As 

such, the Board finds the additional 15% penalty inappropriate here.”

(C.R., Item No. 13.)
8

regarding EUC benefits, the Board affirmed without modification. (Id.) The 

Board specifically noted that it discredited Claimant’s testimony that she could not 

recall filing for benefits, and that there was an “overt misrepresentation” made by 

Claimant in regards to her employment status. (Id.) Claimant now petitions this 

Court for review.

7

On appeal,8 Claimant argues that the Board’s finding that Claimant 

was the one to file these claims is not supported by substantial evidence.9 

Claimant also argues that the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that 

Claimant received an overpayment subject to recoupment.

First, we will address Claimant’s argument that substantial evidence 

does not exist to support the Board’s finding that Claimant filed the unemployment 

compensation claims. Substantial evidence is defined as relevant evidence upon 

which a reasonable mind could base a conclusion. Johnson v. Unemployment 

Comp. Bd. of Review, 502 A.2d 738, 740 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). In determining whether 

there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings, this Court must examine 

the testimony in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving that party the 

benefit of any inferences that can logically and reasonably be drawn from the 

evidence. Id. A determination as to whether substantial evidence exists to support a 

 

7

This Court granted the Board’s request to consolidate the appeals by Order dated 

January 7, 2016.

8

This Court’s standard of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights 

were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are 

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

§ 704.

9 Although Claimant does not specifically challenge any particular findings of fact, this 

Court will analyze whether any findings that found Claimant to be the individual to file for 

benefits are supported by substantial evidence.
9

finding of fact can only be made upon examination of the record as a whole. Taylor v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 378 A.2d 829, 831 (Pa. 1977). The Board’s 

findings of fact are conclusive on appeal only so long as the record taken as a whole 

contains substantial evidence to support them. Penflex, Inc. v. Bryson, 485 A.2d 359, 

365 (Pa. 1984). “The fact that [a party] may have produced witnesses who gave a 

different version of the events, or that [the party] might view the testimony 

differently than the Board is not grounds for reversal if substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s findings.” Tapco, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of 

Review, 650 A.2d 1106, 1108-09 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). Similarly, even if evidence 

exists in the record that could support a contrary conclusion, it does not follow that 

the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Johnson v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 504 A.2d 989, 990 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). 

In regards to the claims for unemployment compensation benefits and 

EUC benefits, Claimant contends that she has no knowledge of the claims filed on 

her behalf, and as such, should not bear the consequences of these filings. 

(Petitioner’s Brief at 7.) Claimant supports this position by stating that during the 

time these filings occurred, she was not living in the state of Pennsylvania, as she 

had to relocate to New Jersey due to familial issues. (Id.) Further, Claimant states 

that she does not recall giving any family members permission to file any of these 

claims on her behalf. (Id.)

During the hearing, Claimant testified to having no recollection of 

filing the claims for unemployment compensation benefits and EUC benefits. 

(C.R., Item No. 10, at 8.) When questioned by the Referee, Claimant continued to 

state that she has no recollection of filing for benefits, in addition to stating that no 
10

one but her would have filed for claims on her behalf. (Id.) The hearing transcript 

provides the following between Claimant and the Referee:

R: Okay. Now, according to the documents from the 

UC Service Center, when you filed for benefits for 

these weeks, June 11th, 2011 through September 17th, 

2011, you reported that you had no earnings. 

C: To be honest, I don’t even remember filing that. I 

don’t remember from 2011 up until this point. 

R: Well, do you remember filing for benefits while you 

were working?

C: No, I did [sic] not.

R: Okay. Well, who else would have filed [inaudible]?

C: I don’t know. I only use to file Worker’s [sic]

Compensation and my Unemployment – I’m the 

only person that would file anything for myself. 

R: Okay. Then, you filed it. So, why didn’t you report 

your earnings when you were filing for these 

benefits?

C: I don’t even remember reporting them, sir. 

R: I don’t remember is not a good answer. We know 

you did. It’s your Claim. You have a PIN number. 

You had to have done it, unless you gave somebody 

your PIN number and they did it for you. 

C: I don’t know if anybody had my PIN number. 

R: Did you give you PIN number to someone?

C: Not that I can recall.

R: All right. Then, you did. Now, I’ll go back 

to 2011. You’re telling me that you filed for benefits 

for all these weeks while you were working, and you 

don’t recall now that you did that?

C: I absolutely don’t remember. I’ve been through a lot 

over these past four or five years, and no, I don’t 

remember. 

(Id.) 
11

Katherine Stabulas, the unemployment compensation representative 

responsible for issuing the original notices of determinations, testified:

R: When you did this investigation did you find any 

evidence that it was not Ms. Canty who actually filed 

for these benefits?

KS: No, we would not have evidence . . . we would have 

no way of knowing if it wasn’t the Claimant who 

filed. She gets the money that was put into either her 

own – either her debit card or direct deposit. 

R: Ok. Well, do you have any evidence that would 

suggest that in [Claimant’s] defense someone would 

file for these benefits?

KS: No there was no evidence to that at all. 

(Id.) 

It is well settled that in unemployment compensation cases, the Board 

is the ultimate fact finder and is, therefore, entitled to make its own determinations 

as to witness credibility and evidentiary weight. Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. 

of Review, 501 A.2d 1383, 1385 (Pa. 1985). In making credibility determinations, 

the Board “may accept or reject the testimony of any witness, in whole or in part.” 

Greif v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 450 A.2d 229, 230 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1982). The appellate court’s duty is to examine the testimony in the light 

most favorable to the party in whose favor the Board has found, giving that party 

the benefit of all inferences that can logically and reasonably be drawn from the 

testimony. Taylor, 378 A.2d at 831. 

Here, Claimant’s argument essentially asks the Court to overturn the 

fact finder’s credibility determination and reweigh the evidence. The Board 

expressly discredited Claimant’s testimony and found “no credible evidence in the 

record that someone else filed for benefits for [C]laimant,” when it adopted and 

incorporated the Referee’s findings and conclusions. (C.R., Item No. 13.) We 
12

must, therefore, decline Claimant’s invitation to revisit the Board’s credibility 

determinations and reweigh the evidence on appeal. Thus, we conclude that 

substantial evidence exists to support the Board’s finding that Claimant filed for 

benefits. 

Second, we address Claimant’s argument that the Board erred in 

concluding that Claimant received an overpayment subject to recoupment. 

Claimant’s entire argument on this issue is predicated on her version of the facts, 

i.e., that she did not file for benefits. The Board, however, did not accept 

Claimant’s version. Instead, it found that she filed for and received benefits to 

which she was not entitled. As such, we conclude that the Board did not err in 

concluding that Claimant received an overpayment subject to recoupment. 

Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the Board. 

 

 P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Adrian Lee Canty, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2310 C.D. 2015

: No. 2487 C.D. 2015

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2016, the orders of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review are hereby AFFIRMED.

 

 P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge