Court Opinion

ID: 9947674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 15:14:24.390347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:39.477039
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Denita Gearing,                         :
                         Petitioner     :
                                        :
            v.                          :   No. 244 C.D. 2023
                                        :   SUBMITTED: February 6, 2024
Unemployment Compensation Board         :
of Review,                              :
                    Respondent          :

BEFORE:     HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
            HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
            HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER                                  FILED: March 5, 2024

            Denita Gearing, Claimant, petitions for review from the order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed the decision of the
Referee dismissing as untimely Claimant’s appeal from the monetary determination
issued by the Department of Labor and Industry. We affirm.
            The relevant facts of the case as found by the Referee (and adopted by
the Board) are as follows. On January 7, 2022, the Department issued to Claimant’s
last known address a monetary determination which found her financially eligible
for a weekly unemployment compensation benefit of $413 for a maximum of 26 full
weeks. The determination contained appeal instructions specifying that the final
date to appeal was January 28, 2022. The Referee found that Claimant did not appeal
the determination by the deadline. Rather, she filed an appeal on July 19, 2022.1
                The Referee determined that Claimant’s appeal was untimely under
Section 501(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.2 Claimant appealed to the
Board asserting that she had filed timely, attaching as an exhibit an appeal form
dated January 13, 2022. The Board adopted the Referee’s findings and conclusions
and, as stated previously, affirmed. The Board noted that Claimant had provided no
definitive testimony as to when or how she appealed and stated that she had failed
to establish good cause for an appeal filed nearly six months late. The instant
petition for review to this Court ensued.
                On appeal, Claimant, although asserting that she complied with the
filing requirements for unemployment compensation benefits, does not advance an
argument that she filed an appeal on time. She also sets forth several hardships she
has encountered in recovering from a work injury sustained when she was attacked
by a student at the school where she was working, stating that she was “confused
with filing processes.” [Claimant’s Br. at 6 (the statements regarding the attack and
much of the detail of her subsequent difficulties during treatment are outside the
record developed before the Referee).]

    1
       Claimant participated in a telephonic hearing before the Referee to present testimony
concerning her appeal. At the hearing, Claimant testified that she “did appeal [the determination]
on January 13, 2022.” (Notes of Testimony “N.T.” at 3.) Later, Claimant testified that she signed
a form on January 13, 2022. When asked how she filed the appeal of the monetary determination,
Claimant equivocally testified as follows: “I believe I sent this back to www.ufc.pa.gov. Oh,
actually, I probably mailed it to the Office of Unemployment Compensation in Harrisburg.” (N.T.
at 5.) Claimant did not have proof of mailing.

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

                                                 2
              Section 501(e) of the Law requires an appeal from a Department
determination to be filed within 21 days. 43 P.S. § 821(e). Compliance with this
provision is mandatory, United States Postal Service v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 620 A.2d 572, 573 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), and failure
to comply deprives the Board of jurisdiction to consider the matter, Dumberth v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 837 A.2d 678, 681 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2003). While Claimant testified variously that she did or “probably” did file an
appeal form on time, the Board rejected her testimony. As the Board is the ultimate
factfinder, we cannot disturb this finding on appeal.3 Elser v. Unemployment Comp.
Bd. of Rev., 967 A.2d 1064, 1069 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).
              To the extent that Claimant asserts that the hardships caused by her
work injury provide grounds for a late appeal, i.e., an appeal nunc pro tunc, she has
not shown either (1) an administrative breakdown that constituted fraudulent
behavior or manifestly wrongful or negligent conduct or (2) non-negligent conduct
beyond her control. Hessou v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 942 A.2d 194, 198
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (stating the limited circumstances when the Board may consider
an untimely appeal). Claimant suggested at the hearing before the Referee that she
was “seeing doctors and all sorts of professionals due to this accident” and that this
might have caused her to lose proof of mailing (Notes of Testimony at 6), but given
that the burden to establish the right to have an untimely appeal considered is heavy,
id., we can hardly say that the Board erred in determining that Claimant did not meet
it. Finally, the further information concerning the attack upon Claimant at work and

    3
       The appeal form bearing a handwritten date of January 13, 2022, submitted as an exhibit
with Claimant’s appeal from the Referee to the Board (Certified Record at 83), was not presented
to the Referee and, as such, was not properly before the Board. Tener v. Unemployment Comp.
Bd. of Rev., 568 A.2d 733, 738 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (the Board did not err in declining to consider
on appeal evidence not previously submitted to a referee).

                                               3
her resulting injuries set forth in her appeals to the Board and to this Court was not
presented to the Referee and thus could not be considered by either the Board or this
Court. Hollingsworth v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 189 A.3d 1109, 1113
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (the Board may not consider evidence that was not presented to
the referee in rendering its decision and the Court cannot consider averments of facts
outside the record when reviewing the Board’s findings).
             In light of the foregoing, we affirm.

                                       _____________________________________
                                       BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
                                       President Judge Emerita

                                          4
       IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Denita Gearing,                      :
                     Petitioner      :
                                     :
            v.                       :   No. 244 C.D. 2023
                                     :
Unemployment Compensation Board      :
of Review,                           :
                    Respondent       :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2024, the order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.

                                   _____________________________________
                                   BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
                                   President Judge Emerita