IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Chironn Davis, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 348 C.D. 2016

: Submitted: October 7, 2016

Unemployment Compensation Board :

of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: December 7, 2016

Chironn P. Davis (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) dismissing his appeal as 

untimely pursuant to Section 502 of the Unemployment Compensation Law 

(Law).1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

Claimant was discharged from his job with US Airways (Employer) 

for excessive absenteeism. The UC Service Center granted his application for 

benefits, and Employer appealed. On November 16, 2015, a Referee issued a 

decision holding that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment compensation 

benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law, 43 P.S. §802(e). That same day, a copy 

of the decision was mailed to Claimant at his last known post office address; there 

 

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

is no indication that it was returned by the postal authorities as undeliverable. The 

Referee’s decision included a notice advising Claimant that he had 15 days to file 

an appeal to the Board. Thus, in order to be timely, Claimant’s appeal had to have 

been filed on or before December 1, 2015. Claimant did not file an appeal with the 

Board until January 11, 2016. 

On January 13, 2016, the Board advised Claimant in writing that his 

petition for appeal was untimely and that if he believed the appeal should be 

deemed timely, he must reply in writing and request a hearing on the timeliness 

issue. The Board’s letter stated:

If you believe that you filed your appeal within the fifteen (15) 

day period or that it should be deemed timely for other reasons, 

you must request in writing that a hearing be scheduled to 

allow you the opportunity to set forth your reasons as to why 

you believe your appeal was timely filed. Please mail your 

request to the Board at the above letterhead address. Any such 

hearing involves only the issue of whether the appeal was 

timely filed. No ruling is made on the merits of the case unless 

the appeal is first ruled timely. 

Certified Record (C.R. __) Item No. 13 (emphasis in original). 

On January 19, 2016, Claimant sent a written response to the Board 

but did not request a hearing on the timeliness of his appeal. C.R. Item No. 14.2 

 

2 Claimant’s letter stated:

Again, I am filing this appeal for very good cause. In my case I do not agree with 

the referee’s decision on my behalf, and my union’s behalf. I am Local 1776. 

Also I went into the hearing unprepared with no type of legal representation 

barring the proof that I have, and I feel as tho [sic] I am entitled to a fair day in 

Court. Also I have not filed for benefits since they have been cut due to the 

referee’s decision. 

C.R. Item No. 14.
3

As a result, the Board issued an order dismissing Claimant’s appeal as untimely 

pursuant to Section 502 of the Law, 43 P.S. §822. Claimant now petitions for this 

Court’s review. 

On appeal,3 Claimant argues that the Board’s order was not supported 

by substantial evidence and did not properly consider the applicable law. 

Specifically, Claimant argues that his appeal should be considered timely because 

of his status as a pro se litigant. He also argues that Employer failed to carry its 

burden of proving willful misconduct, and did not act in accordance with its own 

termination procedures. 

We first address Claimant’s argument regarding the timeliness of his 

appeal. Claimant asserts that an appeal may be submitted late if the delay was not 

caused by Claimant’s own negligence. He argues that his late filing was not the 

result of his negligence, but, rather, his ignorance of the law as a pro se litigant. 

Claimant’s argument lacks merit. 

Section 502 of the Law provides that “[t]he referee’s decision, and the 

reasons therefor ... shall be deemed the final decision of the board, unless an 

appeal is filed therefrom, within fifteen days after the date of such decision....” 43 

P.S. §822. If an appeal is not filed within 15 days, the referee’s decision becomes 

final and the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the matter. Han v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 A.3d 1155, 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

 

3

This Court’s scope of review in an unemployment compensation appeal is to determine whether 

an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether necessary 

findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative 

Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Brown v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 A.3d 

933, 936 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). 
4

2012). The 15-day time limit for filing an appeal from the referee’s decision is 

mandatory. United States Postal Service v. Unemployment Compensation Board 

of Review, 620 A.2d 572, 573 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). 

Further, Section 101.61(a) of the Department’s regulations provides: 

(a) If an appeal from a decision of the Department or an 

application for further appeal appears to have been filed beyond 

the applicable time limit, the tribunal shall advise the appealing 

party in writing that it appears not to have jurisdiction because 

of the late filing, and that the appeal or application for further 

appeal will be dismissed without a hearing unless the appealing 

party notifies the tribunal in writing within the succeeding 15 

days from the date of such notice, that he contends the appeal or 

application for further appeal was timely filed and that he 

desires a hearing. If no reply from the appealing party is 

received within the 15-day period, or if the appealing party 

does not request a hearing, the tribunal shall dismiss the appeal 

or application for further appeal. 

34 Pa. Code §101.61(a) (emphasis added). 

Failure to request a hearing on the timeliness of an appeal in 

accordance with Section 101.61(a) of the Board’s regulations, and when directed to 

do so by the Board’s letter, warrants the dismissal of the appeal. See Han, 42 A.3d 

at 1155. In Han, we explained:

[T]he Board is without jurisdiction to further consider the 

matter under [S]ection 502 [of the Law], and it is precluded 

from considering the facts underlying the timeliness of 

Claimant’s appeal unless they are adduced at a hearing on that 

issue. Claimant prevented the Board from considering his 

claims regarding the timeliness of his appeal by failing to 

request such a hearing and, as a result, we are constrained to 

conclude that the Board did not err in dismissing his appeal as 

untimely. 
5

Id. at 1158. Here, the Board notified Claimant on January 13, 2016, that his appeal 

appeared to be untimely. As did the claimant in Han, Claimant responded to the 

Board but did not request a hearing. Thus, the Board was prevented from holding 

a hearing on the timeliness of Claimant’s appeal and, consequently, lacked

jurisdiction to consider Claimant’s appeal under Section 502 of the Law, 43 P.S. 

§822. 

Claimant asserts that he believed his response to the Board was 

sufficient and asks for leniency based on his ignorance of the law. This Court has 

observed that “any layperson choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding 

must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that his lack of expertise and legal 

training will prove his undoing.” Vann v. Unemployment Compensation Board of 

Review, 494 A.2d 1081, 1086 (Pa. 1985) (quoting Groch v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 472 A.2d 286, 288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984)). What is 

more, we cannot say Claimant’s lack of legal training or expertise played any 

significant role here. The Board’s letter, in bolded text, stated that if Claimant 

believed his appeal should be deemed timely for any reason, he “must request in 

writing a hearing to be scheduled” to allow him to explain such reasoning. 

Claimant, in his response, failed to follow this explicit direction of the Board. 

Accordingly, the Board did not err in dismissing Claimant’s appeal as untimely. 4

 

4 Claimant’s brief alleges that his landlord withheld his mail for two weeks and he did not 

receive the Referee’s November 16, 2015, decision. Claimant’s Brief at 15. This argument 

would have been properly heard at a timeliness hearing before the Board. However, Claimant’s

failure to request a hearing precludes this Court from addressing it now. 
6

For the foregoing reasons,5the order of the Board is affirmed. 

 ______________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

 

5

Even if Claimant’s appeal was timely filed, it would fail on the merits. The Referee found that 

Claimant was terminated for willful misconduct due to excessive absenteeism. Referee’s 

Decision, 11/16/2015, at 2; C.R. Item No. 11 at 2. The Referee found that Employer used a point 

system attendance policy which provided that any employee who accumulated 12 points may be 

subject to termination. Id. at 1. At the time of Claimant’s termination, he had been issued three 

employee contact reports warning him of his excessive absenteeism, and had accumulated a total 

of 33 attendance points. Id. at 2. Moreover, the Referee found that Claimant offered no 

adequate justification for his excessive absenteeism. At the hearing Claimant offered into 

evidence a funeral notice and two court orders requiring his appearance. C.R. Item No. 10. The 

Referee found this insufficient to justify Claimant’s absenteeism that resulted in 33 attendance 

points. Referee’s Decision, 11/16/2015, at 2; C.R. Item No. 11 at 2. We agree. Accordingly, 

Employer met its burden of proving that Claimant committed willful misconduct. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Chironn Davis, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 348 C.D. 2016

:

Unemployment Compensation Board :

of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 7

th day of December, 2016, the order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated February 2, 2016, in the 

above-captioned matter is AFFIRMED.

 _____________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge