IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Rose Perri, :

: No. 1515 C.D. 2015

Petitioner : Submitted: November 25, 2015

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge1

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: February 4, 2016

Rose Perri (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the August 5, 2015, 

order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirming the 

decision of a referee to deny Claimant’s request for waiver of repayment (waiver) of 

unemployment compensation (UC) benefits under section 4005(b) of the Emergency 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 (EUC Act).2 We affirm.

On April 11, 2013, the local service center issued two determinations

finding that Claimant had non-fraud UC overpayments totaling $21,774 for the period

 

1

This case was assigned to the opinion writer on or before January 31, 2016, when Judge 

Leadbetter assumed the status of senior judge.

2

Title IV of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, P.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323, 

section 4005(b), 26 U.S.C. §3304 Note.
2

from July 2012 to March 2013. (Findings of Fact, No. 1.)3 On April 12, 2013, 

Claimant filed the waiver request, which the local service center denied. (Id., Nos. 2-

3.) Claimant appealed to the referee, who conducted a hearing. (Id., No. 5.) 

Claimant lives alone, owns her own home without a mortgage, and has 

no debt. (Id., Nos. 6, 13.) Claimant has no monthly income and relies on savings and 

investments to pay her monthly expenses. (Id., No. 7.) Claimant has checking and 

savings accounts totaling $47,000; certificates of deposit totaling $25,000; a 

severance package, a portion of which is liquid assets, totaling $154,000; and an 

individual retirement account with a balance of $100,000. (Id., Nos. 8-11.) 

Claimant’s non-discretionary household monthly expenses total $1,552. (Id., No. 

12.) This total includes food and groceries, taxes, utilities, transportation, insurances, 

and prescription drugs. (Id.)

The referee denied Claimant’s request for a waiver. Although Claimant

was not at fault for the UC overpayment, the referee concluded that based on the 

record, requiring Claimant to repay the overpayment would not create a financial 

hardship. Claimant appealed to the UCBR, which affirmed.4 The UCBR concluded 

that Claimant left work for personal reasons, which included taking care of her father, 

who died in June 2014, and her own medical issues. Claimant is financially secure 

and her lack of income stems from her decision not to look for work. Rather, 

 

3

The local service center concluded that Claimant was unavailable for work due to 

chemotherapy treatment. (R. Item No. 2.) Claimant did not appeal the determinations.

4

The UCBR adopted and incorporated the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law 

in their entirety.
3

Claimant is fixing her father’s house and deferring receipt of her pension for as long 

as possible. The UCBR concluded that Claimant’s personal decisions failed to 

establish that repayment of the non-fault overpayment would be contrary to equity 

and good conscience. This appeal followed.5

On appeal, Claimant contends that she is not at fault for the overpayment 

and should not be required to repay it. This court agrees that Claimant is not at fault, 

but agrees with the UCBR that a waiver is not warranted because repayment would 

not be contrary to equity and good conscience.

Section 4005(b) of the EUC Act provides: 

(b) Repayment.-- In the case of individuals who have 

received amounts of [EUC] under this title to which they 

were not entitled, the State shall require such individuals to 

repay the amounts of such [EUC] to the State agency, 

except that the State agency may waive such repayment if it 

determines that-

(1) the payment of such [EUC] was without fault on

the part of any such individual; and 

(2) such repayment would be contrary to equity and 

good conscience.

(Emphasis added.)

 

5 Where, as here, the burdened party is the only party to present evidence and does not 

prevail before the factfinder, this court’s review is limited to determining whether the factfinder 

capriciously disregarded competent evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or 

whether an error of law was committed. Essick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 

655 A.2d 669, 670 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
4

It is well established that “[w]aiver of . . . repayment is discretionary, not 

compulsory[.]” Ficek v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 481 A.2d 

1247, 1249 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). Financial hardship is a basis for granting a waiver 

request. Deklinski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 37 A.3d 1262, 

1264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). 

In Grunwald v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 829 

A.2d 786, 787 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), the claimant received social security benefits, 

owned his home without a mortgage, and had $289,000 in retirement savings. 

Although the claimant testified that he had upcoming expenses including a wedding 

and the return of his children to his home, this court agreed that the repayment of 

$2,656 would not cause the claimant a financial hardship. Id. at 787-88.

Here, Claimant owns her home without a mortgage, has no debt, and has 

assets totaling more than $325,000. Although $21,774 is a significant amount to 

return, the UCBR concluded that it will not cause Claimant a financial hardship. This 

court is sympathetic to Claimant’s situation; however, the EUC Act mandates the 

return of the overpayment where, as here, Claimant was without fault and repayment 

is not contrary to equity and good conscience, i.e., would not cause Claimant a 

financial hardship.

Accordingly, we affirm.

___________________________________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Rose Perri, :

: No. 1515 C.D. 2015

Petitioner : 

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4

th day of February, 2016, we hereby affirm the August 

5, 2015, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.

___________________________________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge