IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Anna Marie Patricia Seader, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1328 C.D. 2022

: Submitted: July 14, 2023

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: November 17, 2023

Anna Marie Patricia Seader (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of 

an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), 

affirming the Referee’s determination that Claimant was ineligible for pandemic 

unemployment assistance benefits after July 16, 2020, because she was no longer 

unemployed as a direct result of the COVID-19 Pandemic and that a non-fault 

overpayment was established. On appeal, Claimant argues that she remained 

eligible for pandemic unemployment compensation benefits, despite receiving an 

offer of full-time employment, because the rate of pay was lower than at her previous 

job. Discerning no error in the Board’s adjudication, we affirm.

Claimant was employed by Family Health Council of Central 

Pennsylvania (Employer), until March 17, 2020, when, due to the COVID-19 
2

Pandemic, Employer shut down its business.

1

 Claimant was unable to work. On 

March 27, 2020, Congress enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security (CARES) Act,2 which provided financial assistance to individuals affected 

by the COVID-19 Pandemic. The CARES Act provided that individuals entitled to 

receive unemployment compensation benefits could be paid “regular compensation” 

in the amount determined under state law, plus an additional amount for “pandemic 

unemployment compensation.” 15 U.S.C. §9023. For weeks of unemployment 

ending on or before July 31, 2020, eligible individuals could receive $600 weekly 

Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC). 15 U.S.C. 

§9023(b)(3)(A)(i). Individuals not otherwise eligible for “regular compensation,” 

such as those who were self-employed, were made eligible for Pandemic 

Unemployment Assistance (PUA) under Section 2102 of the CARES Act.3 15 

U.S.C. §9021. 

Claimant applied for PUA benefits. The Department of Labor and 

Industry, Office of Unemployment Compensation Benefits (Department), issued a 

determination finding Claimant eligible for PUA benefits at a weekly amount of 

1 On March 19, 2020, because of COVID-19, Governor Wolf issued an Executive Order 

temporarily closing all businesses deemed to be non-life-sustaining. See Friends of Danny DeVito 

v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872, 878-79 (Pa. 2020).

2

15 U.S.C. §§9001-9141.

3

Individuals eligible for unemployment compensation benefits but unable or unavailable for work 

due to specified COVID-19 related reasons, including the closure of the place of employment as a 

direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, could receive PUA benefits. U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 16-20 (April 5, 

2020), available at: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2020/UIPL_16-

20.pdf (last visited November 13, 2023).
3

$254,

4 plus an additional $600 weekly in FPUC benefits. On September 14, 2020, 

she began working for Meadville Medical Center. 

A year later, in October 2021, the Department issued a Pandemic 

Unemployment Disqualifying Determination, finding that Claimant was 

no longer unemployed as a direct result of the Pandemic. You 

refused, without good cause, to apply for or to accept suitable 

work which is cause for denial of [Pandemic Assistance] 

benefits. 

Certified Record at 14 (C.R. __). Accordingly, the Department informed Claimant 

that she had been overpaid PUA benefits for the weeks ending March 21, 2020, 

through September 12, 2020, in the amount of $254 a week for a total of $4,883. 

Additionally, she was overpaid FPUC benefits for the weeks ending March 2, 2020, 

through July 25, 2020, in the amount of $7,200. Claimant appealed, and a hearing 

was held before a Referee.

Claimant testified that she stopped working for Employer on March 17, 

2020, when it closed because of the COVID-19 Pandemic. She filed for 

unemployment compensation benefits. Claimant subsequently found other 

employment at the Meadville Medical Center in September 2020. Prior to 

September 2020, Claimant testified that she had been offered a job as a Nutritional 

Services Aide, but she declined the offer because “it wasn’t going to meet [her] 

needs[.]” Hearing Transcript at 5 (H.T. __); C.R. 79. She explained that the salary 

for the nutritional services aide position was “so low” that she would not be able to 

4

 Pennsylvania’s Pandemic Unemployment Assistance “provides up to 79 weeks of benefits to 

qualifying individuals who are otherwise able to work and available for work within the meaning

of applicable state law, except that they are unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or 

unavailable to work due to COVID-19-related reasons[.]” Pennsylvania’s Pandemic 

Unemployment Assistance Portal, https://pua.benefits.uc.pa.gov/vosnet/Default.aspx (last visited 

November 13, 2023). 
4

pay her bills or “even pay off [her] student debt.” H.T. 5; C.R. 79. Claimant testified 

that during the time she received PUA benefits, she applied for 100 jobs. She argued 

that she was eligible for unemployment compensation during that six-month period 

of time, notwithstanding her refusal to accept a job offer. 

Following the hearing, the Referee issued a decision finding that 

Claimant was eligible for benefits under Section 2102(a)(3) of the CARES Act, 15 

U.S.C. §9023(b), effective March 15, 2020, through July 25, 2020, but ineligible for 

benefits effective July 26, 2020. In so doing, the Referee made the following 

findings of fact: 

2. On March 17, 2020 the claimant was furloughed from her 

job at Family Health Council of Central PA due [to] the 

pandemic mandated closures.

3. On July 24, 2020 the claimant was offered full time 

employment as a Nutritional Services Aide with Encompass 

Health.

4. The claimant declined that job as she was not satisfied 

with the rate of pay.

5. The claimant started working full time in South Carolina 

on or about September 15, 2020.

[5]

6. The claimant received PUA benefits for the weeks ending 

March 21, 2020 through September 12, 2020 in the amount of 

$254 per week for a total of $4,883.

7. The claimant received [] Federal Pandemic 

Unemployment Compensation benefits for the weeks ending 

May 2, 2020 through July 25, 2020 in the amount of $600 per 

week for a total of $7,200.

Referee Decision at 2, Findings of Fact Nos. 2-7; C.R. 88. 

5

In Finding of Fact No. 5, the Referee stated that Claimant “started working full time in South 

Carolina.” This appears to be a typo, as Claimant testified that she started working full time at the

Meadville Medical Center in Pennsylvania. H.T. 4; C.R. 78.
5

The Referee explained that Claimant was unemployed due to the 

Pandemic from March 15, 2020, through July 24, 2020. Because she was offered a 

job and no longer unemployed due to the Pandemic, the Referee found that she was 

ineligible for PUA benefits under Section 2102(a)(3)(A)(1) of the CARES Act,

effective July 16, 2020. Accordingly, Claimant was not entitled to PUA benefits for

the weeks ending August 1, 2020, through September 12, 2020, which totaled

$1,178. However, the Referee found the $1,178 overpayment not fraudulent.

Because Claimant was eligible for PUA benefits for the weeks ending 

March 21, 2020, through July 25, 2020, she was entitled to the FPUC benefits. 

Accordingly, the Referee cancelled the notice of overpayment for the FPUC 

benefits.

Claimant appealed the Referee’s decision to the Board, which affirmed 

the Referee’s decision. In so doing, the Board adopted and incorporated the 

Referee’s findings of fact. Claimant then petitioned for this Court’s review.

On appeal,6 Claimant has identified four issues in her brief.

7 Her brief 

does not develop each of these issues but, rather, argues that the Board erred in 

determining that she was ineligible for PUA benefits effective July 26, 2020. 

6 This Court’s review determines whether constitutional rights were violated, whether errors of 

law were committed, or whether the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. 

Sheets v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 708 A.2d 884, 885 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1998).

7 Claimant’s Statement of Questions sets forth the following four questions: 

(1) Why has the Department [], the Pennsylvania Unemployment 

Compensation Office, and its Board []failed to recognize its decisions are in 

contradiction with its published instructions to users of its services? []

(2) Having presented this evidence in January 2022 in the request for the second 

appeal, and then again in August 2022 in the appeal to the Board of Review, why 

has [the Department] not specifically addressed it or even acknowledged the 

submission of the evidence?
6

We begin with a review of the relevant legal principles, which draw on 

both state and federal statutes.

The CARES Act provides PUA benefits to covered individuals, which 

is a defined term. Section 2101(a)(3) of the CARES Act states, in relevant part, as 

follows:

(3) Covered individual

The term “covered individual”--

(A) means an individual who--

(i) is not eligible for regular compensation or extended 

benefits under State or Federal law or pandemic 

emergency unemployment compensation under section 

9025 of this title, including an individual who has 

exhausted all rights to regular unemployment or extended 

benefits under State or Federal law or pandemic 

emergency unemployment compensation under section 

9025 of this title;

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

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

within the meaning of applicable State law, except 

the individual is unemployed, partially 

unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work 

because--

* * * *

(3) If these [Pandemic Unemployment Assistance] benefits were ineligible, 

why were they paid and not reviewed for over a year?

(4) Why has [the Department] sent, retracted, then sent again the Notice to 

Assess Penalty on this matter, which is awaiting the appeals process, and citing 

extraordinary amounts having no relevance to this matter?

Claimant Brief at 8. The argument section of Claimant’s brief mentions the first issue on appeal; 

therefore, the Court will address this issue. However, Claimant does not mention or even develop 

issues 2, 3, and 4 in her brief; therefore, the Court will not address those issues in its opinion. 

Rapid Pallet v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 707 A.2d 636, 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1998) (arguments not properly developed are deemed waived).
7

(jj) the individual’s place of employment is closed 

as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health 

emergency[.]

15 U.S.C. §9021(a)(3)(A)(i), (ii)(I)(jj). Because Claimant became unemployed on 

March 17, 2020, when her place of employment was shut down by COVID-19, she 

became a “covered individual” entitled to PUA benefits as of that date. 

To remain eligible for PUA benefits, Claimant had to remain 

unemployed due to a COVID-related reason for each week. See Unemployment 

Insurance Program Letter No. 16-20, Change 1, Attachment I, pg. I-12, Question 46; 

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/

UIPL/2020/UIPL_16-20_Change_1_Attachment_1.pdf (last visited November 13, 

2023). Accordingly, refusal to work renders a claimant no longer unemployed due 

to a COVID-related reason. Id., Question 49. Guidance from the United States 

Department of Labor provides:

Additionally, the individual may still be eligible for PUA if he or 

she [was] to refuse work that would be considered suitable under 

state law, but turned the work down for “good cause” under state 

law. To continue to be eligible for PUA after turning down 

suitable work for “good cause,” this individual still must be 

unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to 

work because of one of the COVID-19 related reasons.

Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 16-20, Change 2, Attachment I, pg. I7, Question 16; https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2020/

UIPL_16-20_Change_2_Attachment_1.pdf (last visited November 13, 2023) 

(emphasis added). 

Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)8states, 

in part, that an individual is ineligible for compensation for any week

8 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(a).
8

[i]n which his unemployment is due to failure, without good 

cause, either to apply for suitable work at such time and in such 

manner as the department may prescribe, or to accept suitable 

work when offered to him by the employment office or by any 

employer[.]

43 P.S. §802(a). Claimant has the burden to prove that the work available was not 

suitable9and that she had good cause for the refusal. Rising v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 621 A.2d 1152, 1153-54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).

Claimant does not dispute that she was capable of performing the work 

as a nutritional services aide with Encompass Health.

10 The question is whether she 

had good cause to refuse that job offer, i.e., “real and substantial reasons.” Rising, 

621 A.2d at 1155. At the hearing before the Referee, Claimant testified that she 

rejected the offer from Encompass Health because the salary “wasn’t going to meet 

[her] needs[.]” H.T. 5; C.R. 79. It was “so low” that she would not be able to pay 

her bills or “even pay off [her] student debt.” H.T. 5; C.R. 79. 

Refusal to accept employment based upon the amount of compensation

does not, ipso facto, constitute good cause for refusal. In Conti v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 420 A.2d 778, 779 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980), we held 

that the claimant did not have good cause to refuse a job that paid a wage 24% lower 

than his previous wage, especially after 7 months of unemployment. In Bicer v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 377 A.2d 828, 829 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1977), the claimant, an unemployed machinist, refused a “machinist/die maker” 

position because the rate of pay was too low. The claimant previously earned $5.00 

an hour, and the new job paid $4.82 an hour for the first 30 days and $4.97 thereafter. 

9 Suitable work is all work which the employee is capable of performing. Section 4(t) of the Law, 

43 P.S. §753(t).

10 Claimant worked as a Nutritionist at Family Health Counsel of Central Pennsylvania prior to 

the Pandemic. H.T. 4; C.R. 11, 78.
9

At the time of the job offer, the claimant had been unemployed for five months. We 

held that “the rate of pay of the offered employment was not such as to justify the 

refusal of that employment.” Id. at 829. See also Donnelly v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 330 A.2d 544, 547 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (after 3.5

months of unemployment, “[a] claimant’s particularity for desired employment must 

decrease” to the point of accepting substantially less remuneration; viz., $550 per 

month, as opposed to $704 per month); Valentine v. Unemployment Compensation 

Board of Review, 180 A.2d 85 (Pa. Super. 1962) (claimant did not act in good faith 

by refusing employment paying $50 and $60 a week, as compared to prior weekly 

wage of $100, after more than 4 months of unemployment). 

Here, Claimant’s only reason for rejecting the offer of employment was 

the reduction in compensation. She claimed that the pay was “so low” that she could 

not “pay off” her debt and bills. H.T. 5; C.R. 79. However, Claimant did not provide 

any evidence to compare her prior rate of pay with that offered. Because a reduction 

in compensation is not, by itself, good cause to refuse employment, Claimant did not 

make her case. 

Claimant argues, however, that the Board’s instructions led her to 

believe she could refuse a job offer that paid less than she made before her 

unemployment. She cites the Board’s online questions and answers, which state, in 

part: 

Q. What kind of jobs can I apply for?

A. You may apply for jobs that would provide suitable work; 

that is, any work that you are capable of performing. However, 

you are allowed to limit your job applications to jobs that offer

employment and wages similar to what you had before you 

became unemployed[.]
10

C.R. 84 (emphasis added). This online information is irrelevant because it relates to 

the job application process and does not pertain to the refusal of a job that has been 

offered.

Claimant had been unemployed approximately four months when she 

applied for a job that paid less than her previous employment. Once she received 

the offer, she could not refuse to accept it solely based on the rate of compensation.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s adjudication.

 _____________________________________________

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

Anna Marie Patricia Seader, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1328 C.D. 2022

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2023, the August 3, 2022, 

adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.

 _____________________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita