IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Rebecca Grimwood, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

 : Nos. 12 C.D. 2023

 Petitioner : 13 C.D. 2023

 v. : 14 C.D. 2023

: 15 C.D. 2023

Unemployment Compensation : 

Board of Review, :

 Respondent : Submitted: May 7, 2024

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE WOLF FILED: June 7, 2024

Rebecca Grimwood (Claimant) petitions for review from four 

determinations of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), 

which affirmed four Referee determinations dismissing her appeals as untimely

under Section 501(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Claimant filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits 

on March 15, 2020. The UC Service Center (Service Center) issued four Notices of 

Determination (determinations) with a mailing date of July 15, 2021, finding 

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 821(e). 
2

Claimant ineligible for benefits pursuant to Sections 402(h)2 and 4(l)(2)(B)3 of the 

Law, assessing a non-fault overpayment pursuant to Section 804(b)(1) of the Law,4

and assessing a non-fraud overpayment of Federal Pandemic Unemployment 

Compensation (FPUC) benefits under Section 2104(f) of the Coronavirus Aid, 

Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).

5

 Certified Record (C.R.) at 19-

65. Claimant filed appeals from each of the determinations on May 23, 2022. C.R.

at 67-76. 

In her appeals of the Service Center determinations, Claimant stated: “I 

am filing an appeal because I never [overstated] my need (in fact I understated my 

need). Having to pay this back would cripple my family and my business.” C.R. at 

67. Claimant further provided “I am filing an appeal due to the fact I never 

[overstated] my need-I actually could have filed for more help. Paying this back 

would cripple my family[.]” Id. at 70. 

A hearing was held before the Referee on June 14, 2022. Following the 

hearing, the Referee issued four identical determinations finding as follows.

6

1. On July 15, 2021, four Notices of Determination were 

issued, finding [Claimant] ineligible for 

Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits under 

Section 402(h) of the Law and assessed overpayments 

under Sections 804(b) [of the Law] and 2104(f) of the 

CARES Act.

2

43 P.S. § 802(h).

3

43 P.S. § 753(l)(2)(B).

4

43 P.S. § 874(b)(1).

5

15 U.S.C. § 9023(f). 

6 The Referee’s determinations are found at pages 132-167 of the Certified Record.
3

2. Copies of the Determinations were mailed by the 

Department [of Labor and Industry (Department)]

according to [Claimant’s] preferred method of 

communication on the above date and provided in 

[Claimant’s] website portal. 

3. The Notices of Determination were not returned as 

undeliverable.

4. The Notices of Determination informed Claimant that 

she had until July 30, 2021, to file an appeal if 

[Claimant] disagreed with the determinations[.]

5. [Claimant] filed the appeal by email with a sent date of 

May 23, 2022. 

6. [Claimant] was not misinformed nor in any way misled 

regarding the right of appeal or the need to appeal. 

Referee’s Findings of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 1-6, C.R. at 133, 142, 151, and 160. 

The Referee reasoned:

Section 501(e) of the Law[,] [42 P.S. § 821(e)], provides 

that a Notice of Determination shall become final, and 

compensation shall be paid or denied in accordance 

therewith unless an appeal is filed within the designated 

period after proper notification of said determination has 

been given to all affected parties.

The Pennsylvania Courts have consistently held that, 

absent a breakdown in the administrative process, a party’s 

testimony is not sufficient to prove timeliness of an appeal. 

In the case, [Claimant] was unable to provide any evidence 

or competent testimony that she filed an appeal prior to the 

appeal dated May 23, 2022, after receiving the notices of 

determination at appeal in the case. Although [Claimant] 

did attend the hearing, the Referee has no competent 

evidence regarding the late appeal to consider the appeal 

as timely filed as [Claimant’s] testimony was vague. The 

provisions of this Section of the Law are mandatory, and 
4

the Referee has no jurisdiction to allow an appeal filed 

after the expiration of the statutory appeal period. 

Therefore, Claimant’s appeal is dismissed.

Referee’s Reasoning, C.R. at 133, 142, 151, and 160.

Claimant appealed the Referee’s determinations. In those appeals, 

Claimant stated the following as her basis for seeking review:

I was given instructions to file an [appeal] no later than

July 25, 2022. Let this email serve as my official appeal 

request due to the fact I have been attempting to login for 

three days and either your site is down[,] or my login info 

[sic] is not working and the reset links are also down.

C.R. at 172, 176, 180, and 184. 

On appeal, the Board affirmed, adopting and incorporating the 

Referee’s findings and conclusions. The Board’s decisions emphasize that on 

appeal, Claimant did not argue that her appeal was timely filed or that she was 

entitled to nunc pro tunc relief.7

Claimant filed four petitions for review with this Court.8 On April 19, 

2023, this Court issued an order consolidating the petitions for review. 

7

In limited circumstances, a limitations period can be waived and an appeal considered timely 

as nunc pro tunc, or “now for then.” Hessou v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 942 A.2d 194, 

197-98 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). An appeal nunc pro tunc is only warranted, however, in extraordinary 

circumstances “involving fraud or some breakdown in the court’s operation,” or where the delay 

is caused by non-negligent circumstances either by the claimant or a third party. Cook v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 671 A.2d 1130, 1131 (Pa. 1996) (internal quotations omitted) 

(quoting Bass v. Cmwlth., 401 A.2d 1133, 1135 (Pa. 1979)). 

8 Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an 

error of law was committed, or whether the necessary factual findings are supported by substantial 

evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704.
5

ISSUES

Claimant argues the record is devoid of any evidence that the Service 

Center’s July 15, 2021 determinations were actually mailed. As a result, the Board 

erred in accepting the Referee’s findings and relying on the “Mailbox Rule.” 

DISCUSSION

At the time of Claimant’s appeals to the Referee, Section 501(e) of the 

Law directed claimants to file an appeal within 15 days of receiving a notice of 

determination from the Board.

9

 A determination becomes final and the Board does 

not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal once the deadline lapses. Darroch v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 627 A.2d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). 

Failure to appeal before the mandatory deadline creates a jurisdictional defect this 

Court cannot overlook even “as a matter of grace or indulgence.” Carney v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 181 A.3d 1286, 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). 

When a determination is mailed to a claimant’s last known address and 

is not returned as undeliverable, “there is a presumption of the regularity of 

administrative acts of public officials which the referee may invoke in reaching a 

determination that the claimant did have proper notice.” Gaskins v. Unemployment 

Comp. Bd. of Rev., 429 A.2d 138, 140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). Merely denying receipt 

of a determination is not sufficient to defeat the presumption. J.A. v. Dep’t of Pub.

Welfare, 873 A.2d 782, 786 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). 

Claimant argues that the presumption of mailing, i.e., the Mailbox Rule,

never arose in this case because the Service Center determinations were never 

9 Act 30 of 2021 amended Section 501(e) of the Law and increased the deadline to timely file 

an appeal of a Referee’s decision from 15 to 21 days. The amendment was not yet effective at the 

time of Claimant’s appeals.
6

mailed. She asserts that this case is analogous to Douglas v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 151 A.3d 1188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). In Douglas, 

the Board also relied on the Mailbox Rule to reach the conclusion that the claimant 

filed an untimely appeal from a Service Center determination. This Court held, 

however, that the Board erred in applying the Mailbox Rule because the claimant, 

in addition to contending that she did not receive the Service Center determination, 

also argued that the determination was not mailed; thus, the claimant disputed the 

basis giving rise to the presumption that she received notice. 

The Douglas court explained:

In Blast Intermediate Unit # 17 v. Unemployment

Compensation Board of Review, 645 A.2d 447 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 1993), this Court recognized two component 

presumptions, both rebuttable, that arise when a party 

challenges a public official’s claim to have placed an order 

in the mail: (1) the presumption of the regularity of the acts 

of public officials (which is used to establish that a public 

official placed an item into the mail); and (2) the 

presumption of receipt (i.e., that a properly mailed letter to 

the last known address of the addressee which is not 

returned undelivered by the postal authorities was timely 

received by the addressee—i.e., the mailbox 

rule). See Blast, 645 A.2d at 449. We explained that the 

two presumptions are applied separately and that there 

must be some evidence to support the first presumption 

before the second presumption may be applied. In other 

words, “the presumption of receipt is ‘inapplicable’ in the 

absence of proof that the notice was mailed. ‘[U]ntil there 

is proof that a letter was mailed, there can be no 

presumption that it was received.’” Id. (quoting Leight v.

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of [Rev.], 410 A.2d 1307, 1309

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (alteration in original)).

Id. at 1192. 

Important here, the claimant in Douglas actually raised the issue of 

mailing before the Referee and the Board. Indeed, the Douglas Court held that the 
7

mail date on the determination was not sufficient proof of mailing “in the face of a

challenge.” Id. at 1193.

In Wheeler v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Reading 

Hospital and Medical Center), 829 A.2d 730, 734 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), this Court 

recognized that an issue is waived unless it is preserved at every stage of the 

proceeding. Furthermore, in Wing v. Unemployment Compensation Board of 

Review, 436 A.2d 179, 180 (Pa. 1981), our Supreme Court established that the 

waiver doctrine was applicable to unemployment compensation cases. See also

Watkins v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 751 A.2d 1224, 1226 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2000) (an unemployment compensation claimant waives review of an issue by 

neglecting to raise and preserve it before the referee); Dehus v. Unemployment 

Comp. Bd. of Rev., 545 A.2d 434, 436 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). 

Here, Claimant’s appeal documents to the Referee and Board challenge 

the negative impact the overpayment ruling will have on her family and business, as 

well as the challenges she faced in bringing the appeals. C.R. at 67, 172, 176, 180,

and 184. Absent from these documents is any assertion that the Service Center 

determinations were not mailed. The same can be said of Claimant’s testimony 

before the Referee. While Claimant tesified that she did not receive the Service 

Center determinations, see C.R. at 121-22, she did not testify that the determinations 

were not mailed. 

Unlike the Court in Douglas, we are not faced with a situation where a 

challenge to mailing was preserved. Because Claimant did not raise the issue until 

her appeal to this Court, it has clearly been waived. 
8

CONCLUSION

Claimant has waived the issue of whether the Service Center’s 

determinations were mailed. Accordingly, the Board properly applied the Mailbox 

Rule in this case. Because the record reflects that the Service Center determinations 

were mailed to Claimant’s last known address and not returned as undeliverable, 

there is a presumption that Claimant received the determinations. Furthermore, as 

Claimant’s appeals to the Referee were not filed within Section 501(e)’s time 

constraints, and Claimant failed to raise an issue that she was entitled to nunc pro 

tunc relief, we must affirm the Board’s determinations.10 

_____________________________________

MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

10 In light of our disposition, we will not address Claimant’s remaining argument. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Rebecca Grimwood, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

 : Nos. 12 C.D. 2023

 Petitioner : 13 C.D. 2023

 v. : 14 C.D. 2023

: 15 C.D. 2023

:

Unemployment Compensation : 

Board of Review, :

 Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 7th day of June 2024, the December 9, 2022 

determinations of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review are 

AFFIRMED. 

_____________________________________

MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge