IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lahaina Kameha, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 366 C.D. 2019

: Submitted: August 23, 2019

Unemployment Compensation Board :

of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge1

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: October 30, 2019

Lahaina Kameha (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of an 

adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that 

dismissed her appeal as untimely under Section 502 of the Unemployment 

Compensation Law (Law).

2

 Discerning no error by the Board, we affirm. 

Claimant worked part-time for Reliance First Capital (Employer) as a 

Telemarketer Verification Agent beginning on August 24, 2016. Her last day was 

 

1 This matter was assigned to this panel before September 1, 2019, when Judge Simpson assumed 

the status of senior judge.

2 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §822. Section 

502 of the Law provides, in relevant part:

The parties and their attorneys or other representatives of record and the department 

shall be duly notified of the time and place of a referee’s hearing and of the referee’s 

decision, and the reasons therefor, which shall be deemed the final decision of the 

[B]oard, unless an appeal is filed therefrom, within fifteen days after the date of 

such decision the board acts on its own motion, to review the decision of the referee.

43 P.S. §822. 
2

June 16, 2017. Claimant filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits, 

which the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Service Center denied under Section 

402(b) of Law, 43 P.S. §802(b).3 Claimant appealed, and the Referee held a hearing 

on October 3, 2017. Claimant appeared and testified at this hearing. The Referee 

concluded that Claimant failed to establish a necessitous and compelling reason for 

leaving her employment and affirmed the UC Service Center’s determination that 

Claimant was ineligible for benefits. The Referee mailed his decision to Claimant 

on October 5, 2017. The Referee’s decision stated that the final date to appeal was 

October 20, 2017.

Claimant appealed to the Board on November 7, 2018. On November 

16, 2018, the Board informed Claimant that her appeal was untimely. Claimant 

requested a hearing, prompting the Board to remand the matter to the Referee for 

further proceedings on whether the Board could still exercise jurisdiction.

The Referee conducted a telephonic hearing on January 31, 2019. 

When asked whether she received a copy of the Referee’s October 5, 2017, decision, 

Claimant testified as follows: 

[Referee:] Did you receive the Referee’s Decision?

* * *

[Claimant:] That’s the one that I did not get right away. I had 

been in the process of working with an agent from LifeLock with 

the fraudulent activity that was going on with my mail and with 

my bank accounts and all sorts of things. 

 

3 Section 402(b), 43 P.S. §802(b), states, in relevant part, that a claimant shall be ineligible for 

compensation for any week in which the claimant’s unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving 

work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. 
3

[Referee:] Okay. But you attended the hearing. So after 

attending the hearing, are you saying you never received the 

Referee’s Decision?

[Claimant:] Yes. 

Notes of Testimony, 1/31/2019, at 5-6 (N.T.__). After some further questioning, 

Claimant acknowledged that she did, in fact, receive the Referee’s decision. The 

following exchange ensued: 

[Referee:] So why was your appeal so late, ma’am?

[Claimant:] Well, for two reasons. One I did not receive the letter 

saying that it had to be addressed by that time. And then, the 

other reason was that I was working with someone who was 

working with me as far as fraudulent activity going on with the 

mail and with my identity and things like that. 

N.T. 6. Later, when asked again why her appeal was late, Claimant stated that she 

received the Referee’s decision more than a year late. Eventually, Claimant stated 

that she received the Referee’s decision in October 2017 and faxed an appeal of the 

decision from a CareerLink office before the end of that month. She testified that 

she called the UC Service Center to verify that her fax was received and an employee

told her that her appeal had been sent to the Board. 

The Referee transmitted the hearing transcript to the Board for 

disposition, and on February 25, 2019, the Board dismissed Claimant’s appeal as 

untimely. The Board reasoned: 

The last day to file an appeal from this decision was October 20, 

2017. However, the claimant did not file an appeal until 

November 7, 2018. The claimant advances several excuses for 

her late appeal, yet, appeared to be confused about the appeal 

process. Nevertheless, the claimant acknowledged that she 

received the determination of the Referee in October of 2017, 
4

and that she attempted to fax an appeal in that same month. 

However, the record is void of any evidence on this attempted 

faxed appeal. The claimant also appeared to assert that her mail[] 

was fraudulently intercepted and forwarded. However, this is 

discredited and contrary to her acknowledgment that she 

attempted to appeal in October of 2017. 

Board Adjudication at 2. Claimant now petitions for this Court’s review.

On appeal,4 Claimant focuses on the merits of her case, arguing that the 

Referee erred in determining she was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of 

the Law, 43 P.S. §802(b). Claimant contends she had a necessitous and compelling 

reason for quitting her job. However, that issue is beyond the scope of this appeal. 

The sole issue before this Court is whether the Board erred in dismissing Claimant’s 

appeal as untimely. 

Claimant addresses the timeliness issue only in passing by suggesting 

that her appeal was late due to fraudulent activity with her mail. She asks this Court 

to “overlook” the fact that her appeal was late. Claimant Brief at 13. The Board 

responds that Claimant failed to provide an adequate excuse for her late appeal, and 

that it properly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We agree.

Section 502 of the Law provides that an appeal to the Board must be 

filed “within fifteen days after the date of [the referee’s] decision.” 43 P.S. §822. 

The 15-day time limit is mandatory; the Board may not consider a claimant’s 

eligibility for benefits if her appeal is untimely. Shea v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 898 A.2d 31, 33 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). The appeal

 

4 This Court’s review of the Board’s adjudication determines whether Claimant’s constitutional 

rights were violated, errors of law were committed, or findings of fact were not supported by 

substantial evidence. Lee Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 637 A.2d 

695, 697 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
5

period cannot be “extended as a matter of grace or indulgence.” Id. at 33 (quotations 

omitted). In other words, the 15-day appeal deadline is strictly enforced. Dumberth 

v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 837 A.2d 678, 681 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2003) (“[A]n appeal filed one day after the expiration of the statutory appeal period 

must be dismissed as untimely.”). 

However, the Board may consider an untimely appeal nunc pro tunc in 

limited circumstances. Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 

942 A.2d 194, 198 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). An appellant must show: (1) the 

administrative agency engaged in fraudulent behavior or manifestly wrongful or 

negligent conduct; or (2) non-negligent conduct beyond the appellant’s control 

caused the delay. Id. at 198. Without an adequate excuse for the late filing, the 

Board must dismiss the appeal. Id.

Here, Claimant offered inconsistent testimony when questioned about 

her late appeal. She first testified that she never received the Referee’s decision 

because of fraudulent activity with her mail. Then she claimed to have received the 

decision a year late. Finally, Claimant testified that she received the Referee’s 

decision in October 2017 and faxed her appeal by the end of the month. The Board 

rejected this testimony because Claimant offered no evidence of an attempt to fax an 

appeal. The Board also discredited Claimant’s testimony that her mail had been 

fraudulently diverted since it was contrary to her own testimony that she attempted 

to appeal in 2017. Because the Board is the fact finder in unemployment 

compensation cases and has complete authority over credibility determinations, we 

are bound by those determinations. Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of 

Review, 776 A.2d 331, 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). Thus, we agree with the Board that 
6

Claimant failed to provide an adequate excuse for filing her appeal more than one 

year late. Nor did she establish that her untimely appeal was the result of fraud or a 

breakdown in the administrative or judicial process. Accordingly, because the Board 

did not err in dismissing Claimant’s appeal, we affirm its adjudication. 

 _____________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lahaina Kameha, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 366 C.D. 2019

:

Unemployment Compensation Board :

of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2019, the order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated February 25, 2019, in the 

above-captioned matter is AFFIRMED.

 _____________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge