Court Opinion

ID: 9391818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 14:09:04.776759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.876306
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Allen Laster,                               :
                      Petitioner            :
                                            :
       v.                                   : No. 619 C.D. 2022
                                            :
Unemployment Compensation                   :
Board of Review,                            :
                 Respondent                 : Submitted: February 24, 2023

BEFORE:       HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
              HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
              HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE CEISLER                                     FILED: May 3, 2023

       Allen Laster (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the May 4, 2022 Order
of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying Claimant’s
request to reinstate his appeal after an evidentiary hearing. Because we conclude
that the Board abused its discretion in denying Claimant’s request, we reverse the
Board’s Order and remand this matter to the Board for the reinstatement of
Claimant’s appeal.

                                        Background
       Claimant filed a claim for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits,
effective July 5, 2020, following his separation from employment with Professional
Transportation Inc. (Employer). Bd’s Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 1; Record (R.) Item
No. 2. On March 29, 2021, the Department of Labor and Industry (Department)
issued a Notice of Determination denying Claimant’s claim for UC benefits under
Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law),1 finding that he

       1
         Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §
802(b). Section 402(b) of the Law provides that an employee is ineligible for UC benefits for any
(Footnote continued on next page…)
voluntarily quit his employment without necessitous and compelling cause. Bd.’s
F.F. No. 2; R. Item No. 5.
       On April 10, 2021, Claimant filed an appeal from the Department’s Notice of
Determination. Bd.’s F.F. No. 3; R. Item No. 6. Thereafter, Claimant consulted
with an attorney, who advised Claimant that he was unlikely to win his appeal and
that if he did win and the decision was later reversed, Claimant would have to pay
back the UC benefits awarded to him. Bd.’s F.F. No. 4.2
       On May 12, 2021, Claimant filed a request with the Department to withdraw
his appeal. Id. No. 5; R. Item No. 9.3 Claimant made his withdrawal request
knowingly and voluntarily. Bd.’s F.F. No. 6. On May 17, 2021, the Referee entered
an Order granting Claimant’s request to withdraw the appeal and terminating “all
proceedings in connection therewith,” stating that she had “reviewed the available
records and f[ound] the request proper.” Id. No. 7; R. Item No. 10.

week “[i]n which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a
necessitous and compelling nature.” 43 P.S. § 802(b).

       2
        The Referee initially scheduled a hearing on Claimant’s appeal for May 25, 2021, see R.
Item No. 8, but that hearing never took place because Claimant withdrew his appeal before that
date.

       3
          Claimant’s email to the Department included the subject line “drop my appeal”; the body
of the email contained only Claimant’s name and appeal number, the name of the Referee, and the
last four digits of Claimant’s social security number. R. Item No. 9. Claimant sent his email to
the Department at 6:47 p.m. on May 12, 2021. Id. The following day, the Department forwarded
the email to the Referee, asking, “DO YOU ACCEPT THIS AS A WITHDRAWAL?” Id. Even
though Claimant sent his email on May 12, 2021, both the Referee and the Board erroneously
found that Claimant filed his withdrawal request on May 14, 2021.

                                               2
       Also on May 17, 2021, Claimant filed a request with the Department to
reinstate his appeal. Bd.’s F.F. No. 8; R. Item No. 11.4 On December 7, 2021, the
Board remanded the matter to the Referee to receive testimony on the issues of why
Claimant withdrew his appeal and why he subsequently wished to reinstate it. Bd.’s
Order, 5/4/22, at 2; R. Item No. 14.5
       The Referee conducted the remand hearing via telephone on January 21, 2022.
Claimant, appearing pro se, testified that he withdrew his appeal based on the advice
of an attorney. Claimant explained:

       I withdrew my [a]ppeal because the lawyer, which was a public
       defender lawyer, had misinformed me about a lot of stuff that I[]
       thought about after I left there. And it just wasn’t right for me. But he
       was telling me that I was going to lose. And he had no interest in
       winning or pursuing my information. . . . [I]mmediately after I went,
       drove home, I got on the phone and called to . . . withdraw because . . .
       I thought about the conversation we had, not taking my side. [The
       attorney] wasn’t – he seemed like he’s for . . . Employer, not for me, an
       employee. He was defending [Employer]. Moreso, he was trying to
       get information from me to represent me. So that’s [why] I thought
       after 30 minutes, . . . I should call and resubmit my [appeal].

       4
          Claimant sent his email to the Department at 10:07 a.m. on May 17, 2021, the same day
the Referee issued her Order approving the withdrawal and terminating the case. R. Item No. 11.
Claimant’s email included the subject line “please reopen my appeal”; the body of the email stated:
“I have gotten bad advice from my lawyer. [P]lease allow me to represent myself or with another
lawyer[.] [P]lease withdraw the cancellation of my appeal.” Id. Three days later, on May 20,
2021, a Department employee, Barbara Forbes-Rouni, forwarded Claimant’s email to the Board,
stating, “This gentleman will most likely be appealing his withdrawal.” Id. Again, even though
Claimant sent the email asking to reopen his appeal on May 17, 2021, and the agency record
indicates that the appeal was filed on May 17, 2021, the Board erroneously found that Claimant
filed his request on May 20, 2021.

       5
          The Board’s remand Order stated in pertinent part: “The purpose of this hearing is to
receive testimony on whether [C]laimant’s appeal should be reinstated. The Board will also accept
testimony on the merits. The Board may reach the merits of [C]laimant’s appeal only if it vacates
the withdrawal order.” R. Item No. 14.

                                                3
Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 1/21/22, at 13. Claimant could not recall the attorney’s
name but recalled that his office was “on Second Street.” Id. at 13-14. Claimant
further testified:

       [The attorney] said if I have to fight it, I have to pay it back if I lose.
       But if I don’t fight it, then I don’t have to pay it back. So that was the
       contributing statement that made me think about not going through with
       it, because that’s what he had told me. I didn’t have to pay it back if I
       didn’t fight.

Id. at 14.
       Claimant testified that shortly after his meeting with the attorney, he changed
his mind. Id. Claimant testified that he called the Referee’s office, and the person
who answered the phone “told [him] what [he] had to do, that [he] had to fax her
information saying that [he] want[ed] to reinstate [his a]ppeal.” Id. at 15. When the
Referee asked Claimant why he wished to reinstate his appeal, he replied:

       I think the [a]ppeal should be reinstated because I got bad information.
       I got information telling me I [would] have to repay [my UC benefits]
       if I [went] on with the [a]ppeal. If I didn’t [win], I wouldn’t have to
       pay it. So that was a big factor in . . . my decision to drop the [a]ppeal.

Id. at 16.6
       Following the remand hearing, the Board issued findings of fact based on its
review of the testimony and concluded as follows:

       During the hearing, [C]laimant testified that he wanted to reinstate his
       appeal because an attorney gave him bad advice. However, the
       evidence shows that the withdrawal request was knowingly and
       voluntarily made. [C]laimant’s frustration with one attorney with
       whom he consulted is not a sufficient reason to reinstate his appeal.
       6
         In compliance with the Board’s remand Order, the Referee also received testimony on the
merits of Claimant’s underlying UC claim. See N.T., 1/21/22, at 16-28. However, because the
Board did not reach the merits of Claimant’s appeal, we need not address that additional testimony.

                                                4
      Importantly, [C]laimant had the freedom to pick an attorney or non-
      legal advocate of his choice. Considering the testimony, the Board
      denies [C]laimant’s request to reinstate his appeal. The withdrawal
      order stands as final.

Bd.’s Order, 5/4/22, at 2 (emphasis added). Claimant now petitions this Court for
review.
                                     Analysis
      Claimant devotes the majority of his appellate brief to arguing the merits of
his underlying, withdrawn appeal rather than to the only issue before this Court:
whether the Board abused its discretion in denying Claimant’s request to reinstate
his appeal. Claimant’s Statement of Questions Involved also fails to mention the
Board’s denial of his request to reinstate the appeal. We could quash Claimant’s
appeal on this basis. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (stating that “[n]o question will be
considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly
suggested thereby”). However, because Claimant includes the issue in the Summary
of Argument and Argument sections of his brief, as well as in his pro se Petition for
Review, we will address it.
      A UC claimant who appeals from a Department determination has the right to
voluntarily withdraw his or her appeal, with the Department’s approval.
Specifically, the Board’s regulations provide: “A party who has filed an appeal may
withdraw and discontinue it with the approval of the tribunal before whom the
appeal is pending. Forms for withdrawal of appeal may be obtained from the office
of the Board, a referee or a local employment office.” 34 Pa. Code § 101.55
(emphasis added).
      We have found only one decision of this Court involving a UC claimant’s
request to reinstate a voluntarily withdrawn appeal: Theodore v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1977 C.D. 2016, filed July 31,

                                         5
2017) (unreported). The Theodore Court outlined the proper standard for reviewing
a Board’s ruling on a reinstatement request as follows:
       This Court reviews the denial of a request to reinstate an appeal for an
       abuse of discretion. See Neals v. City of Phila[.], 325 A.2d 341, 343
       (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974). To determine whether the Board abused its
       discretion, we look to whether the law is overridden or misapplied, or
       the decision “is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.”
       Henderson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev[.], 77 A.3d 699, 713
       (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). In so inquiring, we consider the totality of the
       circumstances surrounding the Board’s decision. Id.

Theodore, slip op. at 3 (emphasis added).7 This Court further explained:

       While Section 101.24 of the Board’s regulation[s], 34 Pa. Code §
       101.24, provides standards for reopening a hearing when a claimant
       fails to attend a scheduled hearing, the Board’s regulations are silent
       in the context of a [request to] reopen following voluntary withdrawal
       [of an appeal]. If this were a workers’ compensation case, the law
       would require consideration of whether [the e]mployer would suffer
       undue prejudice as a result of reopening the appeal. See Powell v.
       Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 443 A.2d 426, 427-28 (Pa. Cmwlth.
       1982). With regard to withdrawals in administrative matters, the
       Supreme Court of Pennsylvania elaborated:

              The power to adjust inequities prior to an administrative
              determination on the merits must necessarily be as broad
              as the powers that are available after such a determination.
              The power to reinstate a gratuitous unilateral withdrawal
              should be liberally exercised absent a significant showing
              of prejudice by the other parties involved.

       Bigley v. Unity Auto Parts, Inc., 436 A.2d 1172, 1178 (Pa. 1981).

       7
         Pursuant to our Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, we may cite an unreported panel
decision of this Court, issued after January 15, 2008, for its persuasive value. 210 Pa. Code §
69.414(a).

                                              6
Id., slip op. at 4-5 (footnote omitted; emphasis added).8
       In this case, the record shows that Claimant sent an email to the Department
asking to reinstate his appeal at 10:17 a.m. on Monday, May 17, 2021, the same day
the Referee issued her Order approving the withdrawal and terminating the case. R.
Item Nos. 10 and 11.           Given the timing of Claimant’s email, Claimant was
presumably unaware of the Referee’s ruling when he sent the email. Furthermore,
three days later, a Department employee forwarded Claimant’s email to the Board,
notifying the Board that Claimant had “called [the Department on] Sunday[, May
16, 2021,] and left a message that he wished to rescind the [withdrawal] request.”
R. Item No. 11. This evidence, taken together, establishes that Claimant sought to
rescind his withdrawal prior to the entry of the Referee’s Order.
       As Theodore instructs, the Board’s “‘power to reinstate a gratuitous unilateral
withdrawal should be liberally exercised absent a significant showing of prejudice
by the other parties involved.’” Theodore, slip op. at 5 (quoting Bigley, 436 A.2d at
1178) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court further explained:

       There is an implied authority at the administrative level to accept a
       unilateral request of withdrawal by the party presenting the claim prior
       to adjudication or agreement. Concomitant with the implied authority

       8
         In Theodore, this Court was unable to determine whether the Board abused its discretion
in denying the claimant’s request to reinstate a withdrawn appeal because the Board “failed
altogether to address whether [the c]laimant’s appeal should be reopened, independent of the
[r]eferee’s decision to grant [the] withdrawal.” Theodore, slip op. at 5. Therefore, we vacated the
Board’s order and remanded for the Board to consider whether the claimant’s appeal should be
reinstated and to explain the reasons for its decision. Id., slip op. at 6. In so holding, we
emphasized that the “[c]laimant d[id] not argue error in the approval of his withdrawal, but
s[ought] a discretionary reinstatement of his appeal and a new hearing.” Id., slip op. at 5 n.6
(emphasis added). Like the claimant in Theodore, Claimant here also does not assert that the
Referee erred in approving his withdrawal; rather, he seeks the discretionary reinstatement of his
appeal.

                                                7
       to permit a withdrawal prior to adjudication or agreement is also the
       power to reinstate that claim in appropriate circumstances.

Bigley, 436 A.2d at 1177 (emphasis added). Here, the record contains no evidence
demonstrating that Employer was prejudiced by Claimant’s request to reinstate,
particularly where Claimant sought to rescind his withdrawal only five days after
requesting it and before the Referee approved it.             Moreover, the Employer
representative who testified at the remand hearing did not specifically contest
reinstatement of the appeal, nor did he testify that Employer would be prejudiced by
reinstatement.
       This case is also distinguishable from those in which a claimant who was
represented by counsel at all times in the proceedings before the agency made a
tactical, informed decision to forgo his appeal rights. See, e.g., Neals, 325 A.2d at
343 (affirming the denial of a request to reinstate an appeal, where the withdrawal
was voluntary and knowing, the petitioner was not forced to withdraw, and “at all
times during the pendency of his case he was advised by counsel”) (emphasis added);
Andrews v. State Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Dep’t of Transp.) (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 513 C.D.
2007, filed Jan. 17, 2008), slip op. at 3-4 (affirming the denial of a request to reinstate
an appeal where the petitioner knowingly and voluntarily withdrew her appeal and
where she “was represented by counsel at all times during the pendency of her case”)
(emphasis added). Although Claimant testified that he consulted with an attorney
after filing his appeal with the Referee, the record shows that Claimant was
unrepresented by counsel throughout the proceedings before the Department.
Claimant also testified that shortly after speaking with the attorney about his case,
he realized he had received bad advice and immediately sought to rescind his
withdrawal. N.T., 1/21/22, at 13-14. Under these circumstances, and applying the

                                            8
analysis set forth in Theodore, which we find persuasive, we conclude that the Board
abused its discretion in denying Claimant’s request to reinstate his appeal.
                                    Conclusion
      Accordingly, we reverse the Board’s Order and remand this matter to the
Board for the reinstatement of Claimant’s appeal from the Department’s March 29,
2021 decision.

                                          ____________________________
                                          ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

                                          9
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Allen Laster,                       :
                   Petitioner       :
                                    :
      v.                            : No. 619 C.D. 2022
                                    :
Unemployment Compensation           :
Board of Review,                    :
                 Respondent         :

                                   ORDER

      AND NOW, this 3rd day of May, 2023, the Order of the Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, dated May 4, 2022, is hereby REVERSED, and
this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Board for the reinstatement of Allen
Laster’s appeal from the March 29, 2021 decision of the Department of Labor and
Industry.
      Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                      ____________________________
                                      ELLEN CEISLER, Judge