IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Chanel Burrell, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : Nos. 1390-1396 C.D. 2022

Respondent : Submitted: August 9, 2024

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge 

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: September 25, 2024

Chanel Burrell (Claimant) petitions this Court, pro se, for review of the 

Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) September 2, 2022

orders affirming the Referee’s decisions and finding Claimant ineligible for 

Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits under Section

2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(gg) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 

(CARES) Act,1for claim weeks ending February 2, 2020 through September 4, 

2021; ineligible for Federal Pandemic UC (FPUC) under Section 2104 of the 

CARES Act2for weeks ending April 4, 2020 through July 25, 2020, January 2, 2021 

through March 13, 2021, and March 20, 2021 through September 4, 2021; and 

1

15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(gg) (defines a covered individual as an individual who 

“was scheduled to commence employment and does not have a job or is unable to reach the job as 

a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency”).

2

15 U.S.C. § 9023 (relating to FPUC).
2

ineligible for Lost Wage Assistance (LWA) under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act)

3

and the Continued Assistance 

for Unemployed Workers Act of 2020 (CAA)4for weeks ending August 1, 2020 

through September 5, 2020, with non-fraud overpayments.

5

 The issue before this 

Court is whether Claimant was eligible for PUA benefits, and therefore eligible for 

FPUC and LWA. After review, this Court affirms.

Claimant has not worked since 2009. Claimant initially filed an 

application for PUA benefits, effective February 2, 2020. Claimant filed a 

subsequent application for PUA benefits, effective March 14, 2021. The Department 

of Labor and Industry (Department) issued Claimant $10,000.00 in PUA benefits for 

50 claim weeks ending February 8, 2020 through March 13, 2021. The Department 

issued Claimant $5,000.00 in PUA benefits for 25 claim weeks ending March 20, 

2021 through September 4, 2021. The Department issued Claimant $10,200.00 in 

FPUC benefits for 17 claim weeks ending April 4, 2020 through July 25, 2020. The 

Department issued Claimant $3,300.00 in FPUC benefits for 11 claim weeks ending 

January 2, 2021 through March 13, 2021. The Department issued Claimant 

$7,500.00 in FPUC benefits for 25 claim weeks ending March 20, 2021 through 

3

42 U.S.C. § 5174 (relating to federal assistance to individuals and households).

4 Pub. L. No. 116-260, 135 Stat. 1182. The CAA amended Section 2102(h) of the CARES 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9021(h), to offer a repayment waiver for PUA overpayments identical to the 

repayment waiver provisions for FPUC overpayments under Section 2104(f) of the CARES Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 9023(f). 

5 Claimant appealed from eight separate Department of Labor and Industry determinations. 

The first decision concerned her eligibility for PUA benefits, and the remaining decisions

concerned her non-fraud overpayments. The Referee held one hearing for all eight docket 

numbers, but issued eight nearly identical decisions. The UCBR also issued eight separate, but 

nearly identical decisions. Claimant appealed from seven of the eight UCBR orders. By August 

8, 2023 Order, this Court granted the UCBR’s Motion to Consolidate the cases.

The UCBR order that Claimant did not appeal from determined Claimant’s ineligibility for 

PUA benefits for weeks ending February 2, 2020 through September 4, 2021. Therefore, 

Claimant’s eligibility for PUA benefits for those weeks is not before this Court. 
3

September 4, 2021. The Department issued Claimant $1,800.00 in LWA benefits 

for 6 claim weeks ending August 1, 2020 through September 5, 2020.

On January 10, 2022, the Department issued a determination denying 

Claimant PUA benefits for claim weeks ending March 14, 2021 through September 

4, 2021, in accordance with Section 2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES Act. 

Claimant did not receive this determination by mail and was unable to access her 

portal account. On February 11, 2022, the Department issued a determination 

denying Claimant PUA benefits for claim weeks ending February 2, 2020 through 

September 4, 2021, in accordance with Section 2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES 

Act. On February 11, 2022, the Department also issued the following 6 overpayment 

determinations: (1) a $10,000.00 PUA non-fraud overpayment for weeks ending 

February 8, 2020 through March 6, 2021; (2) a $5,000.00 PUA non-fraud 

overpayment for weeks ending March 20, 2021 through September 4, 2021; (3) a 

$10,200.00 FPUC non-fraud overpayment for weeks ending April 4, 2020 through 

July 25, 2020; (4) a $3,300.00 FPUC non-fraud overpayment for weeks ending 

January 2, 2021 through March 13, 2021; (5) a $7,500.00 FPUC non-fraud 

overpayment for weeks ending March 20, 2021 through September 4, 2021; and (6) 

an $1,800.00 LWA non-fraud overpayment for weeks ending August 1, 2020

through September 5, 2020. On February 17, 2022, Claimant went to the Career 

Link Center in Philadelphia to have her PUA password reset. 

On February 23, 2022, Claimant appealed from the January 10, 2022 

and February 11, 2022 determinations.6 On March 15, 2022, a Referee held a 

hearing. On March 16, 2022, the Referee affirmed the Department’s determinations

and ruled that Claimant was ineligible for PUA benefits under Section 

6 The Referee later found that Claimant did not receive the January 10, 2022 determination 

by mail and was unable to access her PUA portal account. For that reason, the Referee deemed 

Claimant’s appeal from that determination as timely under Section 501(e) of the UC Law, Act of 

December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 821(e).
4

2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES Act, for claim weeks ending February 2, 2020 

through September 4, 2021, and March 14, 2021 through September 4, 2021; and,

by extension, Claimant was ineligible for FPUC and LWA under Section 2104 of 

the CARES Act, Section 408(e)(2) of the Stafford Act,7and Section 262 of the CAA8

for the compensable weeks at issue; non-fraud overpayments of PUA benefits in the 

amounts of $5,000.00 and $10,000.00 were established under Section 2104(f) of the 

CARES Act; a non-fraud overpayment of FPUC benefits in the amounts of 

$7,500.00, $10,200.00, and $3,300.00 was established under Section 2104(f) of the 

CARES Act; a non-fraud overpayment of LWA benefits in the amount of $1,800.00 

was established under Section 2104(f) of the CARES Act, Section 408(e)(2) of the 

Stafford Act, and Section 262 of the CAA; and Claimant’s appeals were timely, 

pursuant to Section 501(e) of the UC Law.

Claimant appealed to the UCBR. On September 2, 2022, the UCBR 

adopted and incorporated the Referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with

7

42 U.S.C. § 5174(e)(2) (“The President, in consultation with the Governor of a [s]tate, 

may provide financial assistance under this section to an individual or household described in 

paragraph (1) to address personal property, transportation, and other necessary expenses or serious 

needs resulting from the major disaster.”) This provision authorized the additional $300.00 weekly 

benefit under LWA to individuals who, inter alia, certified they were unemployed due to COVID19. See Certified Record (C.R.) at 169. 

8

See C.R. at 169-170.
5

one exception,9and affirmed the Referee’s decisions. Claimant appealed to this 

Court.10

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

part:

The term “covered individual”--

(A) means an individual who--

. . . .

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

(I) is otherwise able to work and available for work within 

the meaning of applicable [s]tate law, except the 

individual is unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable 

or unavailable to work because--[of reasons related to 

COVID-19, including:]

9 The UCBR explained:

The last two paragraphs of the Reasoning portion of the Referee’s 

decision are corrected to read:

“Since [] Claimant is ineligible for FPUC [and] LWA benefits, 

overpayments must be established. 

Therefore, non-fraud overpayments are established under the 

provisions of Section 2104(f)(2), (3), and (3)(a) of the CARES Act, 

Section 408(e)(2) of the Stafford Act, and Section 262 of the

[CAA].” 

This correction is necessary to fix an obvious clerical error and to 

conform the Reasoning portion of the Referee’s decision with his 

order affirming non-fraud overpayments of PUA, FPUC, and LWA

benefits.

C.R. at 164; Supplemental Certified Record at 4-5. The Referee issued one decision addressing 

all of the Department’s determinations. The UCBR issued two, virtually identical, decisions 

addressing Claimant’s appeal from the Referee’s decision.

10 This Court’s “‘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). 
6

. . . .

(gg) the individual was scheduled to commence 

employment and does not have a job or is unable to 

reach the job as a direct result of the COVID-19 public 

health emergency[.]

15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3) (text emphasis added).

Here, Claimant testified:

R[eferee:] Okay. When did you last work?

C[laimant:] I last worked probably 2009.

R[eferee:] Okay. Okay, and at that point, where were you 

working?

C[laimant:] I was looking [sic] for Quality Progressions.

R[eferee:] And what was your position there?

C[laimant:] Human Resources.

R[eferee:] Okay. Okay. Did you file for regular [UC] 

benefits?

C[laimant:] Regular at the time? No.

R[eferee:] Okay. Why did you file for the PUA benefits?

C[laimant:] I filed for the PUA benefits because . . . --

during the pandemic and [sic] I was looking for work. 

And, . . . and trying to survive and basically[.] I 

received . . . a letter saying that I qualified.

R[eferee:] Okay.

C[laimant:] So I just kept filing and, you know, no one[]

stated that indifferent [sic] until I started seeing all this, 

you know, paperwork about I owe, I owe. And like, I 

didn’t -- I was unable to get a dashboard for a moment on 

the PUA site. And like I said, I just started to see all the 

stuff around February 11th, [2022,] but nothing came by 

mail. Like and then everything just hit me at once, like all 

this money. Like, I don’t understand. Like, I was told to 

keep, you know, filing. There was nothing stating that I 
7

shouldn’t be filing, or I didn’t understand what rules I 

broke or what I did wrong.

Certified Record (C.R.) at 79-80 (emphasis added).

Based on the above, the Referee determined:

The individual must have an attachment to the labor 

market and must have experienced a loss of wages and 

hours or was unable to start employment following a bona 

fide job offer.

In the present case, [] Claimant testified that she has not 

worked since 2009. As such, [] Claimant[’s] testimony 

was insufficient to demonstrate that she was attached to 

the labor market at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Therefore, [] Claimant is ineligible for PUA benefits under 

the provisions of Section 2102 of the CARES Act . . . .

. . . .

Since [] Claimant is ineligible for the PUA benefits for the 

weeks at issue, [] Claimant is ineligible for FPUC benefits 

under Section 2104 of the CARES Act . . . .

. . . .

Since [] Claimant is ineligible for the PUA benefits for the 

weeks at issue, [] Claimant is ineligible for LWA benefits 

under Section 2104 of the CARES Act . . . .

. . . .

Since [] Claimant is ineligible for PUA benefits, an 

overpayment must be established. There is no competent 

evidence to indicate that the overpayment was the result of 

fraud. Therefore, a non-fraud overpayment is established 

under the provisions of Section 210[4(f)] of the CARES 

Act . . . .

[11]

C.R. at 89.

11 15 U.S.C. § 9023(f).
8

The UCBR added:

Since [] Claimant is ineligible for FPUC [and] LWA 

benefits, overpayments must be established. 

Therefore, non-fraud overpayments are established under 

the provisions of Section 2104(f)(2), (3), and (3)(a) of the 

CARES Act, Section 408(e)(2) of the Stafford Act, and 

Section 262 of the [CAA].

C.R. at 164.

The UCBR concluded:

[C]laimant’s appeal to the [UCBR] complains that she 

received the PUA paperwork approving her to file for 

benefits. However, the PUA program relies on “selfcertification” in the first instance. Here, [] [C]laimant’s 

Claim Application Information form certified that she was 

“unemployed as a direct result of” COVID-19, which was 

not completely accurate. Rather, she had not worked since 

2009, and by [her] own testimony, had filed for 

“disability” three or four times. Although she claimed she 

was conducting online searches for work at the time of the 

[COVID-19] pandemic, the federal CARES Act relevantly

requires that “the individual [be] scheduled to commence 

employment and does not have a job or is unable to reach 

the job as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health 

emergency,” to qualify for benefits. 15 U[.]S[.]C[.] §

9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(gg). Consequently, [] [C]laimant was 

properly adjudicated to be ineligible for PUA and 

derivative FPUC/LWA benefits. Moreover, the resulting 

[over]payments were determined to be non-fraud.

C.R. at 164-165. This Court discerns no error in the UCBR’s conclusion.12

12 Although the UCBR states that the overpayments were determined to be non-fraud

overpayments, the issues before the Referee and, therefore, the UCBR, were whether Claimant 

was eligible for PUA, FPUA, and LWA, and whether Claimant was overpaid due to receiving

same, see C.R. at 61, 76; the issue of whether the overpayments were non-fraud overpayments was 

not before the UCBR.
9

For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s orders are affirmed.

_________________________________

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

Chanel Burrell, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : Nos. 1390-1396 C.D. 2022

Respondent : 

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2024, the Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review’s September 2, 2022 orders are affirmed.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge