IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carisa Kozicki, :

Petitioner : SEALED CASE

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 1490 C.D. 2021

Respondent : Argued: June 5, 2023 

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: July 20, 2023

Carisa Kozicki (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the 

Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) November 23, 

2021 order affirming the Referee’s decision that found Claimant eligible for a 

weekly Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefit rate of $296.00 under 

Section 9102(d) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020

(CARES Act).

1

 Claimant presents two issues for this Court’s review: (1) whether 

the UCBR erred by affirming the Referee’s decision to calculate Claimant’s PUA 

benefits based upon her prorated annual net income instead of the actual net income 

in her highest quarter; and (2) whether the Department of Labor and Industry 

(Department) violated Claimant’s due process rights by requiring her to upload 

substantiating documents to its evidentiary portal, and then failing to transmit those

documents to the Referee. After review, this Court vacates and remands.

1

15 U.S.C. § 9021 (relating to the creation of the PUA program). 
2

Facts

On March 14, 2021, Claimant applied for PUA benefits. On March 29, 

2021, the UC Service Center determined that, based on Claimant’s quarterly income 

of $0.00 for 2020, “[p]rovided [Claimant] meet[s] all program deadlines and 

eligibility requirements during the week(s) claimed, [Claimant is] eligible for a 

weekly [PUA] benefit amount [] of $195.00 and a dependent(s) allowance [] of 

$0.[00].” Certified Record (C.R.) at 12. On April 6, 2021, Claimant appealed from

the UC Service Center’s determination. On June 1, 2021, a Referee held a telephone

hearing. On June 2, 2021, the Referee affirmed the UC Service Center’s 

determination, as modified, and found Claimant eligible for a $296.00 weekly PUA 

benefit rate under Section 2102(d) of the CARES Act. Claimant appealed to the 

UCBR. On November 23, 2021, the UCBR affirmed the Referee’s decision. 

Claimant appealed to this Court.2, 3

On April 27, 2022, Claimant filed an Application for Leave to Supply 

Documents Omitted from the Certified Record Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1951(b) (Application). Therein, Claimant alleged that 

the UCBR had not filed with the Court material, relevant, and necessary records that 

Claimant had timely submitted to the UC Office prior to the Referee hearing, that 

were provided to the UCBR before its November 23, 2021 decision, and that were 

part of the administrative record. On May 11, 2022, the UCBR opposed the 

Application. By May 17, 2022 Order, this Court directed that the Application be 

listed with the merits of the appeal.

 

2

“‘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 Rev[.], 83 A.3d 484, 486 n.2 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2014).” Talty v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 197 A.3d 842, 843 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2018).

3 Philadelphia Legal Assistance filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Claimant.
3

Discussion 

Claimant first argues that the UCBR erred by affirming the Referee’s 

decision to calculate Claimant’s PUA benefits based upon Claimant’s prorated 

annual net income instead of the actual net income in her highest quarter.

Initially, Section 2102 of the CARES Act created the PUA program. 

Section 2102(a)(3) of the CARES Act provides, in relevant part:

Covered individual

The term “covered individual”--

(A) means an individual who--

(i) is not eligible for regular compensation or extended 

benefits under [s]tate or [f]ederal law or pandemic 

emergency [UC] under [S]ection 9025 of [the CARES 

Act], including an individual who has exhausted all rights 

to regular unemployment or extended benefits under 

[s]tate or [f]ederal law or pandemic emergency [UC] 

under [S]ection 9025 of [the CARES Act];

(ii) provides self-certification that the individual--

. . . .

(II) is self-employed, is seeking part-time employment, 

does not have sufficient work history, . . . ; and

(iii) provides documentation to substantiate employment 

or self-employment or the planned commencement of 

employment or self-employment not later than 21 days 

after the later of the date on which the individual submits 

an application for [PUA] under this section or the date on 

which an individual is directed by the [s]tate [a]gency to 

submit such documentation . . . , except that such deadline 

may be extended if the individual has shown good cause 

under applicable [s]tate law for failing to submit such 

documentation[.]

15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3) (text emphasis added). Here, the Department determined 

that Claimant was eligible for PUA benefits on the basis of her self-employment. 
4

Thus, the issue before this Court is whether the UCBR properly calculated 

Claimant’s weekly PUA benefit amount. 

Section 9021(d)(2) of the CARES Act instructs:

Calculations of amounts for certain covered 

individuals

In the case of a covered individual who is self-employed, 

. . . the assistance authorized under subsection (b) for a 

week of unemployment shall be calculated in accordance 

with [S]ection 625.6 of . . . [the] Code of Federal 

Regulations, [20 C.F.R. § 625.6,] . . . and shall be 

increased by the amount of [f]ederal Pandemic [UC] under 

[S]ection 9023 of [the CARES Act].

15 U.S.C. § 9021(d)(2). Section 625.6(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations

mandates, in relevant part: 

In all [s]tates, . . . the amount of [PUA] payable to an 

unemployed worker or unemployed self-employed 

individual for a week of total unemployment shall be the 

weekly amount of compensation the individual would 

have been paid as regular compensation, as computed 

under the provisions of the applicable [s]tate law for a 

week of total unemployment. In no event shall such 

amount be in excess of the maximum amount of regular 

compensation authorized under the applicable [s]tate law 

for that week.

. . . .

(2) . . . . [T]he base period to be utilized in computing the 

[PUA] weekly amount shall be the most recent tax year 

that has ended for the individual (whether an employee or 

self-employed) prior to the individual’s unemployment 

that was a direct result of the major disaster. The selfemployment income to be treated as wages for 

purposes of computing the weekly amount . . . shall be 

the net income reported on the tax return of the 

individual as income from all self-employment that was 

dependent upon the performance of services by the 

individual. 
5

20 C.F.R. § 625.6(a) (emphasis added).

Section 404 of the UC Law4 provides Pennsylvania’s calculation 

amounts, and expressly describes, in relevant part:

(a)(1) The employe’s weekly benefit rate shall be 

computed as (1) the amount appearing in Part B of the 

Table Specified for the Determination of Rate and Amount 

of Benefits on the line on which in Part A there appears 

his “highest quarterly wage,” or (2) fifty per centum 

(50%) of his full-time weekly wage, whichever is 

greater. . . .

. . . .

(b) The “highest quarterly wages” of an employe shall 

be the total wages (computed to the nearest dollar) which 

were paid to such employe in that calendar quarter in 

which such total wages were highest during the base year.

43 P.S. § 804 (italic emphasis added).

Given that the PUA program was created to provide temporary income 

assistance to individuals who are unemployed due to specified COVID-19

pandemic-related reasons, and who are not eligible for regular state or federal UC 

benefits, and that Section 625.6(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations expressly 

requires use of applicable state law in computing calculations thereof, this Court 

concludes that, provided a claimant submits the proper documents, PUA must be 

calculated using a claimant’s highest quarterly wage as opposed to his/her prorated 

annual net income.

Here, the UCBR concluded:

The Referee prorated [] [C]laimant’s net income reported 

on her 2019 tax returns for both her businesses to derive a 

weekly benefit amount [(WBA)] and he did so in a manner 

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

751-919.10.
6

most favorable to [] [C]laimant. This approach is 

consistent with the federal law . . . . The [UCBR] is unable 

to substantiate [] [C]laimant’s present claim of high 

quarterly income of $14,743[.00], based on the hearing

record developed before the Referee. Nowhere in the 

hearing did [] [C]laimant inform the Referee of this figure. 

The best the [UCBR] can discern is that [] [C]laimant used 

net taxable sales to develop this figure. In any event, 

federal law requires states to use the net income reported 

on the individual’s tax return when determining the 

weekly amount for self-employed individuals.

Accordingly, the [UCBR] is unable to determine any error 

by the Referee.

UCBR Dec. at 2. Based upon the above-quoted CARES Act provisions, the Code 

of Federal Regulations, and the UC Law, the UCBR erred by concluding that federal 

law requires states to use a claimant’s prorated net income as opposed to his/her 

highest quarterly wage. 

Claimant next argues that the Department violated Claimant’s due 

process rights by requiring her to upload substantiating documents to its evidentiary 

portal, and then failing to transmit those documents to the Referee, resulting in an 

incomplete record and reversible error. The UCBR rejoins that it did not violate 

Claimant’s due process rights because its decision was based on the complete record 

before it, and Claimant failed to assert that documents were missing from the record 

or identify those records.

As [the Pennsylvania Supreme] Court has emphasized, 

“the basic tenets of due process apply with equal force in 

administrative proceedings as they do in judicial 

proceedings . . . [.] [I]t is fundamental that the key 

principles underpinning due process include the 

requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard.” 

Pa. Bankers Ass[’n] v. Pa. Dep[’t] of Banking, . . . 956 

A.2d 956, 965 ([Pa.] 2008); see also Vann v.

[Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev.], . . . 494 A.2d 1081 

([Pa.] 1985) ([UCBR’s] procedural rules regarding 

appeals must comport with the guarantees of fundamental 

due process). Adequate notice in this context includes 
7

the “right to notice of the issues to be decided, and an 

opportunity to offer evidence in furtherance of such 

issues.” Pa. Bankers Ass[’n], 956 A.2d at 965. 

Quigley v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 263 A.3d 574, 593-94 (Pa. 2021) 

(emphasis added). 

Here, Claimant testified before the Referee:

R[eferee:] Okay. I don’t have any other questions then, 

was there anything else you wanted to add for me to 

consider, [Claimant]?

C[laimant:] I think I have a few questions, if that’s okay 

and one of my concerns with that, the paperwork I kept 

receiving said that I claimed zero dollars for 2019 and 

2020 and as I kept sending information via email and 

through my portal I -- those numbers are completely 

incorrect. They kept saying that I claimed zero dollars for 

either year and that I had no employment record. And I 

had uploaded all of my financial records and tried 

calling people and asking for somebody to please clarify 

so that is why I thought my [d]etermination was incorrect 

because it said I had zero dollars for either year and zero 

work history. I feel it’s because I don’t [know] how I 

would have even qualified for [PUA] to begin with. I had 

no work history and I had no money or income for either 

year. I wouldn’t have either [sic] qualified. My initial --

that was my concern and I think you even said it, that I had 

zero dollars and zero work history for 2019, that I had no 

income which is not accurate.

R[eferee:] That’s what the [UC] Service Center recorded. 

I’m not sure how they -- I don’t know whether -- because 

I do see from your [a]ppeal you included gross records in 

your [a]ppeal, so that may have been what -- they couldn’t 

issue a [d]ecision on gross income, they had to wait until 

you got -- they got your Schedule C and your [Internal 

Revenue Service form] 1040. They needed those, both of

those documents in order to make a [d]ecision, so.

C[laimant:] Well, unfortunately all that information is 

in my portal as I told them, and it was in there with --

before. But I don’t know.
8

R[eferee:] And I . . .

C[laimant:] Nobody contact[ed] me again.

C.R. at 76-77 (emphasis added).

Claimant’s witness5clarified:

R[eferee:] Okay. Is there anything else you wanted to add 

or I’m not sure if anything [Claimant’s witness] was going 

to add.

C[laimant’s] W[itness:] We -- the information on the 

[d]etermination [Claimant] received said that her [PUA] 

would be based on 2019.

R[eferee:] Correct.

C[laimant’s] W[itness:] Income, right. So we were 

wondering if that is accurate? I mean, because I guess 

they have all the information now.

R[eferee:] I have the information now. So I’ll make a

[d]ecision based on what she’s submitted.

C[laimant’s] W[itness:] Okay.

C.R. at 77 (emphasis added).

Finally, the Referee asked again:

R[eferee:] Okay. Was there anything else then?

. . . .

C[laimant:] Do you need any additional information 

from me?

R[eferee:] Well, the only issue before me is your financial 

eligibility and based on what you told me,I have enough 

information to make a [d]ecision so I shouldn’t need 

anything else.

5 Claimant acted pro se at the Referee hearing. Her witness “[was] [t]here to help 

[Claimant] interpret[] all the paperwork from Pennsylvania Unemployment. [Claimant’s witness] 

worked for the [B]ureau [of Unemployment] for 20 plus years.” C.R. at 73. 
9

C[laimant:] Okay.

C.R. at 78 (emphasis added).

Claimant informed the Referee that she had submitted information that 

the Department did not consider in making its determination, and wanted to ensure 

the Referee had all applicable documents. Confusing the situation even more, the 

Referee stated: “[T]he only issue before me is your financial eligibility . . . [,]” when 

in fact, the issue before the Referee was the amount of Claimant’s PUA benefits. Id.

Moreover, in her appeal to the UCBR, Claimant stated, in relevant part:

I am submitting this further appeal of Referee [d]ecision 

[d]ocket #2021010541, mailed on [June 2, 2021], and/or

requesting reconsideration/redetermination. According to 

Pennsylvania [UC] Law, my high quarter net income of 

$14,743.00 qualifies for [PUA weekly benefits] of 

$572.00.

My $14,743[.00] (my gross income for that quarter is 

$18[,]065[.00], but I have calculated my net earnings and 

provided that information. That is how my 2020 PUA was 

determined) high quarter wages were verified by my 

quarterly taxes form submitted to the Pennsylvania 

[Department] of Revenue and copies were sent to the 

Bureau of Unemployment as I provided both my net and 

my gross income.

I have also submitted copies of [Internal Revenue Service]

form Schedule C to the Bureau of Unemployment to verify 

my net income of $28,008[.00] for calendar year 2019. I 

own two businesses, Carisak Photography and Thrive 

Space, both shut down and [were] affected by the 

pandemic in March 2020. This proves a sufficient percent 

of income outside my 2019 high quarter. It also proves I 

have qualifying income to receive a [PUA weekly benefit] 

of $572.00.

PUA [WBA] is to be computed in accordance with the 

same formula and tables to compute [WBAs] under the 

state’s regular [UC] program.

Furthermore, I am not even sure how the figures were 

computed by my appeal officer as none of them match the 
10

income or paperwork I provided. Could someone explain 

to me how these figures were generated? The findings of 

fact listed on my appeal decision are inaccurate. It appears 

the [R]eferee made up the quarter amounts I made 

regardless of my provided paperwork and tax 

documents as they do not match any of my 2019 quarters. 

I provided the information that was asked for and 

required by the law. We also verified with the [R]eferee 

[] that the [D]epartment was using 2019 income and high 

quarters to determine [PUA]. He stated that was true. He 

stated at the time that he could not see any income except 

for the Thrive Space income despite the fact that both 

my [f]ederal [t]ax Schedule C was provided and that 

my [Pennsylvania] Sales Tax/Income was provided 

numerous times and has been in my portal since April 

2020 and was emailed numerous times as well.

. . . .

. . . . Therefore, my tax documents provided to the Bureau 

of Unemployment provide sufficient required and legal 

information and should be used to determine my [PUA].

C.R. at 91-92 (emphasis added).

Claimant further reported:

I received this paperwork in the mail which I have also 

attached. Also attached are the forms I file every month

that show my gross sales as a business owner in 

[Pennsylvania]. These forms are included and show up 

in my dashboard on [the] PUA portal, so I’m not sure 

why I must resend them but here they are. These are 

my business records. I do not have an employer, I am selfemployed. My work documents prove my gross sales and 

my business record for the past 18 months. However[,] I 

have calculated my net income and listed it. I have been 

in business since 2005. These are actual filings with the 

[Pennsylvania] state that are legal documents.

C.R. at 92 (emphasis added).
11

This Court recognizes:

Under Pennsylvania law, pro se [litigants] are subject to 

the same rules of procedure as are represented [litigants].

See Commonwealth v. Williams, . . . 896 A.2d 523, 534 

([Pa.] 2006) (pro se [litigants] are held to same standards 

as licensed attorneys).

Although the courts may liberally construe materials filed 

by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit 

upon a litigant, and a court cannot be expected to become 

a litigant’s counsel or find more in a written pro se

submission than is fairly conveyed in the pleading. 

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014). However, here, 

Claimant testified that she submitted all of her paperwork on the UC portal6as 

instructed, and had no reason to suspect that when the Referee informed her that he 

had “enough information to make a [d]ecision,” that he, in fact, did not.7 C.R. at 78.

Upon receipt of the Referee decision, and realizing, once again, that her documents 

were not considered, Claimant notified the UCBR of the same. Notwithstanding 

that Claimant testified that she submitted all of her financial records and only a 

portion thereof were considered by the Referee and the UCBR, Claimant was not 

given “an opportunity to offer evidence in furtherance of [her] issues[,]” and, thus, 

Claimant was denied due process. Quigley, 263 A.3d at 594 (quoting Pa. Bankers 

Ass’n, 956 A.2d at 965).

6 At oral argument, the UCBR’s counsel explained that the UC portal is a centralized 

location where claimants can upload or receive documents electronically. He further represented 

to the Court that the UC portal was launched during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the 

Department experienced many problems with its roll out due to the high volume of users and the 

newness of the system. 

7 At oral argument, the UCBR’s counsel stated that the Referee does not receive all 

documents uploaded in the UC portal. Rather, the only documents uploaded in the UC portal that 

are forwarded to the Referee are the documents that the UC Service Center relies upon to make its 

determination.
12

Relative to the Application, Claimant asserts that the UCBR had not 

filed material, relevant, and necessary records with the Court that Claimant timely 

submitted to the UC Office prior to the Referee hearing, that were provided to the 

UCBR before its November 23, 2021 decision, and that were part of the 

administrative record. Claimant, therefore requests leave to supply the 

aforementioned records to be included in the certified record. The UCBR rejoins 

that the UCBR did not consider any of the evidence being offered to supplement the 

record and, consequently, these documents cannot be added to the record in this case.

This Court has explained:

An appellate court is limited to considering only those 

facts that have been duly certified in the record on appeal. 

City of Pittsburgh Comm[’n] on Hum[.] [Rels.] v. 

DeFelice, 782 A.2d 586, 593 n. 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). 

For purposes of appellate review, that which is not part of 

the certified record does not exist. Id. Documents 

attached to a brief as an appendix or reproduced record 

may not be considered by an appellate court when they are 

not part of the certified record. Stabler Dev[.] Co[.] v. 

B[d.] of Supervisors of Lower Mt. Bethel T[wp.], 695 A.2d 

882, 887 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) . . . . “[I]t is the 

responsibility of the [petitioner] to supply this Court with 

a complete record for purposes of review. The failure by 

a[ petitioner] to insure that the original record certified for 

appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper 

review constitutes waiver of the issue(s) sought to be 

examined.” Salameh v. Spossey, 731 A.2d 649, 658 (Pa.

Cmwlth. [1999]) . . . (citation omitted).

B.K. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 36 A.3d 649, 657-58 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

Here, Claimant is seeking 

inclusion of [her Department records] in the certified 

record of this appeal as a supplemental record pursuant to

[Rule] . . . 1951(b). Steglik v. Workers’ Comp[.] Appeal 

[Bd.] (Delta Gulf Corp[.]), 755 A.2d 69, 74 n. 3 (Pa.

Cmwlth. [2000]) . . . ; Williams v. Workmen’s Comp[.]
13

Appeal [Bd.] (Green Constr[.] Co.), 687 A.2d 428, 431 n.3 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

B.K., 36 A.3d at 658. However, because those records were not supplied to, or 

considered by the Referee or the UCBR, they are not part of the record as defined 

by Rule 1951(a), and cannot be considered by this Court in this appeal. Accordingly, 

Claimant’s Application is denied.

Conclusion

The UCBR erred by affirming the Referee’s decision to calculate 

Claimant’s PUA benefits based upon her prorated annual net income instead of the 

actual net income in her highest quarter. In addition, the UCBR violated Claimant’s 

due process rights by failing to include all necessary documents submitted to the 

Department in the record before the Referee. 

For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s order is vacated, and the 

matter is remanded to the UCBR to hold an evidentiary hearing and to consider all 

of Claimant’s relevant records previously submitted to the Department regarding her 

PUA claim, including, but not limited to, Claimant’s “sales tax documents, tax 

records, expenses for [her] highest quarter, and bank records.” C.R. at 58. 

Claimant’s Application is denied.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carisa Kozicki, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 1490 C.D. 2021

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2023, the Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review’s (UCBR) November 23, 2021 order is VACATED,

and the matter is REMANDED to the UCBR for further proceedings consistent with 

this Opinion.

Carisa Kozicki’s Application for Leave to Supply Documents Omitted 

from the Certified Record Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

1951(b) is DENIED.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge