IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tayseer Albeetar, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 1278 C.D. 2022

Respondent : Submitted: May 26, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: September 6, 2023

Tayseer Albeetar (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) dated June 24, 2022. The 

Board affirmed a Referee’s decision that Claimant’s appeal from a redetermination 

of the Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation 

(Department), was untimely. We quash the appeal.

I. Background

The certified record indicates that Claimant, a self-employed Uber 

driver, filed an application for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits on June 

2, 2020. Certified Record (CR) 005. He reported that his gross salary for 2019 had 
2

been $5,000.00 per month. CR 003. He reported loss of work due to the COVID19 pandemic. CR 007. 

Claimant was initially awarded Pandemic Unemployment Assistance

(PUA) benefits pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

of 2020 (CARES Act),

1

subsequently amended by the continued Assistance for 

Unemployed Workers Act of 20202 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,3 and 

applicable federal regulations.4 See CR 012. However, on May 12, 2021, the 

Department’s Office of UC Benefits issued a redetermination that Claimant’s actual

2019 employment income for UC benefit calculation purposes was not $5,000.00

per month, but $1,714.75 per quarter, a total annual income of $6,859.00. Id. 

Therefore, the Department determined that Claimant was eligible for a weekly 

benefit amount (WBA) of only $195.00 rather than the $528.00 that he had been 

receiving. Id.; see also CR 048. The redetermination included information on 

appealing but also stated:

If you disagree with this redetermination, you have the 

right to appeal under PA Law and your appeal must be 

received or postmarked by 05/27/2021. However, if you 

have documentation which you have not already submitted 

that you feel will increase the WBA, please submit it to the 

Department by one of the methods above and request a 

redetermination rather than file an appeal. You will have 

the right to appeal the redetermination.

CR 013. Claimant apparently alleges that he chose to submit additional 

documentation to the Department pursuant to the quoted information. See CR 046. 

1

15 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9141.

2 Pub. L. No.116-260, 134 Stat. 1182.

3 Pub. L. No. 117-2, 135 Stat. 4.

4

20 C.F.R. §§ 625.1 – 625.30 & Appendices (1989).
3

However, he does not allege that he either requested or received a later 

redetermination based on any new information he submitted. In any event, he does 

not dispute that he did not immediately appeal the May 12, 2021 redetermination.

On June 24, 2021, Claimant sent an email message seeking to appeal 

the May 12, 2021 redetermination. CR 019. As the basis for his appeal, Claimant 

stated that he had received a letter regarding his PUA benefits, indicating that his 

income in 2019 was only $6859.00; however, his 2019 tax return reflected income 

of $47,202.00.

5

 Id. The Department’s appeal review information noted that the 

appeal, Docket Number 2021018924-AT, was untimely. CR 017.

A UC Referee scheduled a telephone hearing on Claimant’s appeal. 

The hearing notice listed the issues to be decided as: “1) Whether [Claimant] filed 

a timely and valid appeal from the initial determination(s). 2) Whether [C]laimant 

is financially eligible for a higher PUA weekly benefit amount. 3) Whether 

[C]laimant is overpaid due to receiving [PUA].” CR 029; see also CR 044. Notably, 

although the Referee’s scheduling notice in the certified record refers only to the 

appeal at Docket Number 2021018924-AT, the transcript of testimony lists a second 

appeal, Docket Number 2021017190-AT, as well. CR 042-43. The second appeal 

apparently related to a “Notice of Determination [of] Non-Fraud PUA 

Overpayment” with a mailing date of June 21, 2021. CR 044. The overpayment 

determination was evidently based on the previous WBA reduction that was the 

subject of the purportedly untimely appeal at Docket Number 2021018924-AT. Id.

5

In his testimony at the telephone hearing before the Referee, Claimant explained that 

$47,202.00 was his gross income for 2019, and $6859.00 was his net income after expenses. CR 

048. Claimant asserted, without citing any legal authority, that his income for PUA purposes was 

supposed to be based on gross income rather than net income. Id.
4

The reference to overpayment in the list of issues presumably referred to the appeal 

at Docket Number 2021017190-AT.

The Referee took testimony relating to both appeals at the hearing. See

CR 044-50. Regarding the timeliness of his appeal of the May 12, 2021 

redetermination, and notwithstanding the written appeal instructions included with 

the notice of that redetermination, Claimant testified that he “wasn’t familiar that 

there is assistance called Appeal” and did not know he could file an appeal until he 

spoke with a Department employee sometime later. CR 049. 

On December 4, 2021, the Referee issued a decision relating to the 

timeliness of Claimant’s appeal of the May 12, 2021 redetermination at Docket 

Number 2021018924-AT. CR 054-56. The Referee found as facts that the Notice 

of Determination informed Claimant that his deadline to appeal was May 27, 2021, 

that he did not file an appeal until June 24, 2021, and that he “ was not misinformed 

nor in any way misled regarding the right of appeal or the need to appeal.” CR 055. 

Noting that she lacked jurisdiction to allow an untimely appeal, the Referee 

dismissed Claimant’s appeal. CR 056-57.

Claimant appealed to the Board from the Referee’s decision. CR 064-

66. That appeal, which related to the Referee’s decision at Docket Number 

2021018924-AT, was docketed as Number 2021002964-BR before the Board. In 

that appeal, Claimant challenged only the substance of the May 12, 2021

redetermination that reduced his WBA. CR 064-65. He did not argue that the 

Referee had erred in dismissing his appeal as untimely. See id. By order dated June 

24, 2022, the Board adopted the Referee’s findings and conclusions and affirmed the 

Referee’s dismissal of Claimant’s appeal as untimely. CR 075. The Board 

explained, in pertinent part:
5

On appeal, [C]laimant complains that his issues related to 

the reduction in his [WBA] were not corrected. 

Unfortunately, the Board and the Referees do not have 

jurisdiction to review the underlying determination 

because [C]laimant filed an untimely appeal. The fact that 

[C]laimant did not fully comprehend the [re]determination 

or its effect does not warrant accepting the appeal nunc pro 

tunc (now for then). Therefore, the [re]determination 

reducing[C]laimant’s [WBA] to $195 per week stands as 

final.

Id.6 This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

Claimant’s sole argument on appeal is that the Board mistook what 

order he was appealing and therefore erred in concluding that the appeal was 

untimely. Claimant maintains that his appeal to the Board on June 24, 2021 was 

timely in relation to the “Notice of Determination [of] Non-Fraud Overpayment”

dated June 21, 2021. See CR 044. However, this argument is without merit in this 

appeal.

6 The Board opined further:

Nevertheless, even if [C]laimant had filed a timely appeal, the 

[re]determination appears correct based on [C]laimant’s 2019 tax 

information. The regulations for Disaster Unemployment 

Assistance must be applied when calculating the weekly benefit 

amount for . . . PUA[]. It requires the calculation of [C]laimant’s 

[WBA] based on net income from the taxable year. As presented 

on [C]laimant’s 2019 Schedule C, he had a net profit of $6,859. To 

determine a weekly amount under state law provision, this amount 

must be pro-rated to four financial quarters. The prorated amount: 

$1,714, on the state table entitles a claimant to only $68 per week. 

Therefore, it appears correct that [C]laimant was entitled to the 

minimum PUA [WBA] of $195.00.

CR 075-76 (emphasis in original).
6

First, as stated above, Claimant did not assert before the Board that his 

appeal from the redetermination of May 12, 2021 was timely.7 See CR 064-65. As 

this Court has explained previously, the Board’s regulations require an appellant to 

state on the appeal form the reasons for the appeal; any reason not stated on the 

appeal form to the Board is not preserved for a further appeal to this Court. Merida 

v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 543 A.2d 593, 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (citing 

former 34 Pa. Code § 101.82; the referenced language is now contained in 34 Pa. 

Code § 101.81(c)(4)); see also Green v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. (Pa. 

Cmwlth., No. 844 C.D. 2020, filed Dec. 22, 2021), slip op. at 7 (citing Merida and 

observing that “failure to preserve issues before the Board results in waiver of those 

issues”). Accordingly, Claimant has waived the timeliness issue by failing to 

preserve it before the Board.

Even if Claimant had not waived the issue, the appeal he is attempting 

to assert is not properly before this Court. Claimant’s sole argument in support of 

timeliness is that his appeal filed on June 24, 2021 was timely because it appealed a 

determination issued on June 21, 2021. However, as explained above, the record is 

clear that the June 21, 2021 determination was the “Notice of Determination [of]

Non-Fraud PUA Overpayment” at Docket Number 2021017190-AT. As explained 

below, no appeal of the June 21, 2021 determination is properly before us. 

On September 27, 2022, upon receiving a copy of the Board’s separate 

decision on Claimant’s appeal of the June 21, 2021 determination, this Court served 

Claimant with a notice that provided, inter alia:

The Court has received your recent communication 

indicating your intention to appeal from a decision of the 

agency listed at the end of this notice. The Pennsylvania

7 He likewise did not mention the issue of whether his appeal of the June 21, 2021 “Notice 

of Determination [of] Non-Fraud Overpayment” was timely. See CR 064-65.
7

Rules of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.) require that in 

order to perfect your appeal you must file a petition for 

review with this Court . . . . [U]nless your petition for 

review is filed and the filing fee (if any) is paid within 30 

days of the date of this notice, the Court will take no 

further action in this matter. See Pa.R.A.P. 121, 1512, 

1514; Commonwealth Court Internal Operating 

Procedures § 211[.]

Albeetar v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1278 C.D. 2022), 

Notice dated September 27, 2022 (emphasis in original). 

In response, Claimant filed a single petition for review regarding both 

the May 12, 2021 redetermination reducing his WBA at Docket Number 

2021018924-AT and the June 21, 2021 “Notice of Determination [of] Non-Fraud

PUA Overpayment” at Docket Number 2021017190-AT. On December 7, 2022,

this Court issued an order that stated, in its entirety:

NOW, December 7, 2022, upon review of the above 

matter, on October 26, 2022, the Court received 

[Claimant’s] petition for review indicating his intent to

appeal two separate [Board] decisions dated and mailed on 

June 24, 2022. Upon review of the two [Board] decisions, 

docketed at 2021002964-BR and 2021003098-BR, each 

[Board] decision involves the appeal of a different Referee 

decision.

Accordingly, this Court will consider the petition for 

review in this matter as an appeal of only the [Board]

decision at docket number 2021002964-BR. If [Claimant]

wishes to also appeal the [Board] decision at docket 

number 2021003098-BR, he must file, within 30 days of 

the date of this Order, a separate petition for review for the 

[Board] decision at docket number 2021003098-BR. The

October 26, 2022, filing date of the initial petition for 

review shall be preserved as the appeal date of any 

subsequent petition for review challenging the [Board]

decision at docket number 2021003098-BR. [Claimant’s]

failure to file a separate petition for review shall result in 
8

the abandonment of any appeal from the [Board] decision 

at docket number 2021003098-BR.

Albeetar, Order dated December 7, 2022.8 It is clear, therefore, that this appeal 

relates only to the May 12, 2021 redetermination reducing Claimant’s WBA, his 

appeal of which on June 24, 2021 was untimely.

For these reasons, Claimant’s appeal is quashed.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

President Judge Cohn Jubelirer concurs in the result only.

8 A search of this Court’s electronic docketing system revealed no separate petition for 

review relating to the Board’s order at Docket Number 2021003098-BR regarding the June 21, 

2021 determination.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tayseer Albeetar, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 1278 C.D. 2022 

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2023, the appeal of Tayseer 

Albeetar from the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated 

June 24, 2022 at Docket No. 2021002964-BR is QUASHED.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge