Court Opinion

ID: 9949303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 13:09:51.580232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:53.673663
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

George Aswad,                               :
                                            :
                    Petitioner              :
                                            :
             v.                             : No. 1520 C.D. 2022
                                            : Submitted: February 6, 2024
Unemployment Compensation                   :
Board of Review,                            :
                                            :
                    Respondent              :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
             HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge
             HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOLF                                                FILED: March 11, 2024

             George Aswad (Claimant) petitions pro se for review of the August 11,
2022 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that
affirmed the decision of the referee dismissing Claimant’s appeal from a notice of
determination as untimely under Section 501(e) of the Unemployment
Compensation Law (Law).1 We affirm.

      1
         Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S.
§821(e). Section 501(e) of the Law provided in relevant part:

             (e) Unless the claimant . . . files an appeal with the board, from the
             determination contained in any notice required to be furnished by
             the department . . . no later than fifteen calendar days after the
             “Determination Date” provided on such notice, and applies for a
             hearing, such determination of the department, with respect to the
               Claimant worked for York County (Employer). In April of 2020,
Claimant filed for unemployment compensation benefits. On July 7, 2021, the local
service center issued a disqualifying separation determination which found Claimant
ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. §802(b).2 Certified
Record (C.R.) at 11; Referee’s Opinion, 3/15/22, Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 1. The
determination indicated that the final date to appeal was July 22, 2021. C.R. at 11;
Referee’s Opinion, 3/15/22, F.F. No. 2.
               Claimant appealed the service center’s determination on January 6,
2022. C.R. at 24; Referee’s Opinion, 3/15/22, F.F. No. 4. The referee held a
telephonic hearing on March 14, 2022. C.R. at 50. Claimant did not appear or
participate in the proceeding. Referee’s Opinion, 3/15/22 at 2. Citing Section 501(e)
of the Law, the referee determined that Claimant’s appeal was untimely because it
was not filed within 15 calendar days of the service center’s determination. Id.

               particular facts set forth in such notice, shall be final and
               compensation shall be paid or denied in accordance therewith.

43 P.S. §821(e) (emphasis added). The Act 30 of June 30, 2021, P.L. 173, amended Section 501(e)
of the Law increasing the time period from 15 days to 21 days to file an appeal of a notice of
determination. The 21-day appeal period applies to notices of determination issued after the
amendment’s July 24, 2021 effective date. Because the notices of determination were issued
before the July 24, 2021 effective date, the 15-day appeal period still applied as opposed to the
new 21-day deadline.

       2
          Section 402(b) of the Law, provides, in part, that an employee shall be ineligible for
compensation for any week in which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without
cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. 43 P.S. §802(b). Claimant sent a letter to Employer
stating, “I am retiring . . . effective June 19, 2020.” C.R. at 58. This was the basis for the issuance
of a determination disqualifying Claimant under Section 402(b) of the Law. C.R. at 11; Referee’s
Opinion, 3/15/22, F.F. No. 1.
                                                  2
                Claimant filed a timely appeal with the Board and requested that the
matter be remanded to the referee for another hearing. C.R. at 75. The Board
granted the remand request.
                The remand hearing was held on June 10, 2022, with the referee acting
as a hearing officer.3 Claimant participated in the hearing and offered testimony.
Claimant admitted he received the service center’s determination, Board Opinion,
8/11/22, F.F. No. 4; however, Claimant did not have an explanation for why his
appeal was filed late. Id., F.F. No. 7. The Board found good cause for Claimant’s
non-participation in the March 14, 2022 hearing, but ultimately agreed with the
referee’s determination that Claimant’s appeal was untimely. Id. at 2.4 The Board
further held that there was no evidence that Claimant was misinformed or misled by
the unemployment compensation authorities regarding his right or the necessity to
appeal. Id., F.F. No. 8.

       3
           See 34 Pa. Code §101.104(d):

                If the Board determines that a further hearing is necessary, the case
                shall be remanded to a referee for the purpose of scheduling another
                hearing, at which hearing the referee shall serve as a hearing officer
                for the Board, to receive from the parties the additional information
                as may be pertinent and material to a proper conclusion in the case.
                After the record has been completed, the entire file and record of
                evidence shall be returned to the Board for its consideration and the
                further action as may be deemed appropriate.

       4
          The Board’s August 11, 2022 opinion indicates that the service center issued two
additional determinations on July 8, 2021, finding Claimant was subject to a non-fault
unemployment compensation overpayment as well as a non-fraud Federal Pandemic
Unemployment Compensation overpayment pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and
Economic Security (CARES) Act, 15 U.S.C. §§9001-9741. Board Opinion, 8/11/22, F.F. No. 2.
Claimant does not appear to challenge the overpayment determinations, and neither determination
is included in the certified record of this action.

                                                  3
               On appeal to this Court,5 Claimant does not challenge the Board’s
determination that his appeal from the service center to the referee was untimely.
Rather, Claimant challenges the merits of the service center’s determination that he
should be denied benefits because he voluntarily quit from his employment.
               In response, the Board argues it is undisputed that Claimant’s appeal of
the service center determination was untimely and that Claimant failed to provide
any justification for nunc pro tunc relief.
               Prior to July 24, 2021, Section 501(e) of the Law provided that a party
had 15 days to appeal a determination. 43 P.S. §821(e). If an appeal was not filed
within 15 days, “it [became] final, and the Board [did] not have the requisite
jurisdiction to consider the matter.” Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Board
of Review, 942 A.2d 194, 197-98 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). An appeal filed even one day
after the 15-day appeal period is untimely.              Id. at 198; see also Walthour v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 276 A.3d 837, 842 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2022) (“If an appeal from a Department determination is not filed within the 15-day
period, the determination becomes final, and the Board does not have the requisite
jurisdiction to consider the merits of the matter.”). The “failure to file an appeal
within [15] days, without an adequate excuse for the late filing, mandates dismissal
of the appeal.” United States Postal Service v. Unemployment Compensation Board
of Review, 620 A.2d 572, 573 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
               If a delay in filing an appeal is caused by extraordinary circumstances
involving fraud, a breakdown of the administrative process, or non-negligent

       5
         Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether
an error of law was committed, and whether necessary findings of fact were unsupported by
substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Miller v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 83 A.3d 484, 486 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
                                                4
conduct, an appeal nunc pro tunc may be permitted. Cook v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 671 A.2d 1130, 1131 (Pa. 1996). Our Supreme
Court has explained that a breakdown in the administrative process occurs “where
an administrative board or body is negligent, acts improperly or unintentionally
misleads a party.” Union Electric Corp. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals
& Review of Allegheny County, 746 A.2d 581, 584 (Pa. 2000). “It is well settled that
the appeal process will be extended only where it can be shown that the
compensation authorities have engaged in fraudulent conduct or its equivalent, i.e.,
wrongful or negligent conduct.” Pickering v. Unemployment Compensation Board
of Review, 471 A.2d 182, 183 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). “The burden to establish the
right to have an untimely appeal considered is a heavy one because the statutory time
limit established for appeals is mandatory.” Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198.
             Here, the local service center’s disqualifying separation determination
clearly indicated that the last day for Claimant to appeal was July 22, 2021. C.R. at
11. Claimant did not file an appeal until January 6, 2022 -- five months after the
expiration of the appeal period. Claimant admitted he received the notices in July
2021 and testified he did not know why he waited until January 2022 to file an
appeal. Id. at 118. The record is devoid of any evidence involving fraud, a
breakdown of the administrative process, or non-negligent conduct warranting nunc
pro tunc relief.
             After careful review, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in
the record to support the Board’s finding that Claimant did not file a timely appeal
under Section 501(e) of the Law and that it was Claimant’s own negligence that
resulted in the untimely filing, not a breakdown in the administrative process.

                                         5
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order.

                        __________________________________
                        MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

                           6
          IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

George Aswad,                    :
                Petitioner       :
     v.                          :   No. 1520 C.D. 2022
                                 :
Unemployment Compensation        :
Board of Review,                 :
                 Respondent      :

                              ORDER

           AND NOW, this 11th day of March, 2024, the order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated August 11, 2022, is
AFFIRMED.

                               __________________________________
                               MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge