Court Opinion

ID: 9410088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 14:07:31.055834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:55.327149
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carisa Kozicki,                                 :
                       Petitioner               :   SEALED CASE
                                                :
               v.                               :
                                                :
Unemployment Compensation                       :
Board of Review,                                :   No. 1490 C.D. 2021
                 Respondent                     :   Argued: June 5, 2023

BEFORE:        HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
               HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
               HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                                  FILED: July 20, 2023

               Carisa Kozicki (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the
Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) November 23,
2021 order affirming the Referee’s decision that found Claimant eligible for a
weekly Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefit rate of $296.00 under
Section 9102(d) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020
(CARES Act).1 Claimant presents two issues for this Court’s review: (1) whether
the UCBR erred by affirming the Referee’s decision to calculate Claimant’s PUA
benefits based upon her prorated annual net income instead of the actual net income
in her highest quarter; and (2) whether the Department of Labor and Industry
(Department) violated Claimant’s due process rights by requiring her to upload
substantiating documents to its evidentiary portal, and then failing to transmit those
documents to the Referee. After review, this Court vacates and remands.

      1
          15 U.S.C. § 9021 (relating to the creation of the PUA program).
                                             Facts
              On March 14, 2021, Claimant applied for PUA benefits. On March 29,
2021, the UC Service Center determined that, based on Claimant’s quarterly income
of $0.00 for 2020, “[p]rovided [Claimant] meet[s] all program deadlines and
eligibility requirements during the week(s) claimed, [Claimant is] eligible for a
weekly [PUA] benefit amount [] of $195.00 and a dependent(s) allowance [] of
$0.[00].” Certified Record (C.R.) at 12. On April 6, 2021, Claimant appealed from
the UC Service Center’s determination. On June 1, 2021, a Referee held a telephone
hearing.    On June 2, 2021, the Referee affirmed the UC Service Center’s
determination, as modified, and found Claimant eligible for a $296.00 weekly PUA
benefit rate under Section 2102(d) of the CARES Act. Claimant appealed to the
UCBR. On November 23, 2021, the UCBR affirmed the Referee’s decision.
Claimant appealed to this Court.2, 3
              On April 27, 2022, Claimant filed an Application for Leave to Supply
Documents Omitted from the Certified Record Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1951(b) (Application). Therein, Claimant alleged that
the UCBR had not filed with the Court material, relevant, and necessary records that
Claimant had timely submitted to the UC Office prior to the Referee hearing, that
were provided to the UCBR before its November 23, 2021 decision, and that were
part of the administrative record. On May 11, 2022, the UCBR opposed the
Application. By May 17, 2022 Order, this Court directed that the Application be
listed with the merits of the appeal.

       2
          “‘Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were
violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported
by substantial evidence.’ Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev[.], 83 A.3d 484, 486 n.2 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2014).” Talty v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 197 A.3d 842, 843 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2018).
        3
          Philadelphia Legal Assistance filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Claimant.
                                               2
                                     Discussion
            Claimant first argues that the UCBR erred by affirming the Referee’s
decision to calculate Claimant’s PUA benefits based upon Claimant’s prorated
annual net income instead of the actual net income in her highest quarter.
            Initially, Section 2102 of the CARES Act created the PUA program.
Section 2102(a)(3) of the CARES Act provides, in relevant part:

            Covered individual
            The term “covered individual”--
            (A) means an individual who--
            (i) is not eligible for regular compensation or extended
            benefits under [s]tate or [f]ederal law or pandemic
            emergency [UC] under [S]ection 9025 of [the CARES
            Act], including an individual who has exhausted all rights
            to regular unemployment or extended benefits under
            [s]tate or [f]ederal law or pandemic emergency [UC]
            under [S]ection 9025 of [the CARES Act];
            (ii) provides self-certification that the individual--
            ....
            (II) is self-employed, is seeking part-time employment,
            does not have sufficient work history, . . . ; and
            (iii) provides documentation to substantiate employment
            or self-employment or the planned commencement of
            employment or self-employment not later than 21 days
            after the later of the date on which the individual submits
            an application for [PUA] under this section or the date on
            which an individual is directed by the [s]tate [a]gency to
            submit such documentation . . . , except that such deadline
            may be extended if the individual has shown good cause
            under applicable [s]tate law for failing to submit such
            documentation[.]

15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3) (text emphasis added). Here, the Department determined
that Claimant was eligible for PUA benefits on the basis of her self-employment.

                                          3
Thus, the issue before this Court is whether the UCBR properly calculated
Claimant’s weekly PUA benefit amount.
             Section 9021(d)(2) of the CARES Act instructs:

             Calculations     of   amounts     for    certain    covered
             individuals
             In the case of a covered individual who is self-employed,
             . . . the assistance authorized under subsection (b) for a
             week of unemployment shall be calculated in accordance
             with [S]ection 625.6 of . . . [the] Code of Federal
             Regulations, [20 C.F.R. § 625.6,] . . . and shall be
             increased by the amount of [f]ederal Pandemic [UC] under
             [S]ection 9023 of [the CARES Act].

15 U.S.C. § 9021(d)(2). Section 625.6(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations
mandates, in relevant part:

             In all [s]tates, . . . the amount of [PUA] payable to an
             unemployed worker or unemployed self-employed
             individual for a week of total unemployment shall be the
             weekly amount of compensation the individual would
             have been paid as regular compensation, as computed
             under the provisions of the applicable [s]tate law for a
             week of total unemployment. In no event shall such
             amount be in excess of the maximum amount of regular
             compensation authorized under the applicable [s]tate law
             for that week.
             ....
             (2) . . . . [T]he base period to be utilized in computing the
             [PUA] weekly amount shall be the most recent tax year
             that has ended for the individual (whether an employee or
             self-employed) prior to the individual’s unemployment
             that was a direct result of the major disaster. The self-
             employment income to be treated as wages for
             purposes of computing the weekly amount . . . shall be
             the net income reported on the tax return of the
             individual as income from all self-employment that was
             dependent upon the performance of services by the
             individual.

                                          4
20 C.F.R. § 625.6(a) (emphasis added).
             Section 404 of the UC Law4 provides Pennsylvania’s calculation
amounts, and expressly describes, in relevant part:

             (a)(1) The employe’s weekly benefit rate shall be
             computed as (1) the amount appearing in Part B of the
             Table Specified for the Determination of Rate and Amount
             of Benefits on the line on which in Part A there appears
             his “highest quarterly wage,” or (2) fifty per centum
             (50%) of his full-time weekly wage, whichever is
             greater. . . .
             ....
             (b) The “highest quarterly wages” of an employe shall
             be the total wages (computed to the nearest dollar) which
             were paid to such employe in that calendar quarter in
             which such total wages were highest during the base year.

43 P.S. § 804 (italic emphasis added).
             Given that the PUA program was created to provide temporary income
assistance to individuals who are unemployed due to specified COVID-19
pandemic-related reasons, and who are not eligible for regular state or federal UC
benefits, and that Section 625.6(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations expressly
requires use of applicable state law in computing calculations thereof, this Court
concludes that, provided a claimant submits the proper documents, PUA must be
calculated using a claimant’s highest quarterly wage as opposed to his/her prorated
annual net income.
             Here, the UCBR concluded:

             The Referee prorated [] [C]laimant’s net income reported
             on her 2019 tax returns for both her businesses to derive a
             weekly benefit amount [(WBA)] and he did so in a manner

      4
        Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §§
751-919.10.

                                            5
             most favorable to [] [C]laimant. This approach is
             consistent with the federal law . . . . The [UCBR] is unable
             to substantiate [] [C]laimant’s present claim of high
             quarterly income of $14,743[.00], based on the hearing
             record developed before the Referee. Nowhere in the
             hearing did [] [C]laimant inform the Referee of this figure.
             The best the [UCBR] can discern is that [] [C]laimant used
             net taxable sales to develop this figure. In any event,
             federal law requires states to use the net income reported
             on the individual’s tax return when determining the
             weekly amount for self-employed individuals.
             Accordingly, the [UCBR] is unable to determine any error
             by the Referee.

UCBR Dec. at 2. Based upon the above-quoted CARES Act provisions, the Code
of Federal Regulations, and the UC Law, the UCBR erred by concluding that federal
law requires states to use a claimant’s prorated net income as opposed to his/her
highest quarterly wage.
             Claimant next argues that the Department violated Claimant’s due
process rights by requiring her to upload substantiating documents to its evidentiary
portal, and then failing to transmit those documents to the Referee, resulting in an
incomplete record and reversible error. The UCBR rejoins that it did not violate
Claimant’s due process rights because its decision was based on the complete record
before it, and Claimant failed to assert that documents were missing from the record
or identify those records.

             As [the Pennsylvania Supreme] Court has emphasized,
             “the basic tenets of due process apply with equal force in
             administrative proceedings as they do in judicial
             proceedings . . . [.] [I]t is fundamental that the key
             principles underpinning due process include the
             requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
             Pa. Bankers Ass[’n] v. Pa. Dep[’t] of Banking, . . . 956
             A.2d 956, 965 ([Pa.] 2008); see also Vann v.
             [Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev.], . . . 494 A.2d 1081
             ([Pa.] 1985) ([UCBR’s] procedural rules regarding
             appeals must comport with the guarantees of fundamental
             due process). Adequate notice in this context includes

                                          6
            the “right to notice of the issues to be decided, and an
            opportunity to offer evidence in furtherance of such
            issues.” Pa. Bankers Ass[’n], 956 A.2d at 965.

Quigley v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 263 A.3d 574, 593-94 (Pa. 2021)
(emphasis added).
            Here, Claimant testified before the Referee:

            R[eferee:] Okay. I don’t have any other questions then,
            was there anything else you wanted to add for me to
            consider, [Claimant]?
            C[laimant:] I think I have a few questions, if that’s okay
            and one of my concerns with that, the paperwork I kept
            receiving said that I claimed zero dollars for 2019 and
            2020 and as I kept sending information via email and
            through my portal I -- those numbers are completely
            incorrect. They kept saying that I claimed zero dollars for
            either year and that I had no employment record. And I
            had uploaded all of my financial records and tried
            calling people and asking for somebody to please clarify
            so that is why I thought my [d]etermination was incorrect
            because it said I had zero dollars for either year and zero
            work history. I feel it’s because I don’t [know] how I
            would have even qualified for [PUA] to begin with. I had
            no work history and I had no money or income for either
            year. I wouldn’t have either [sic] qualified. My initial --
            that was my concern and I think you even said it, that I had
            zero dollars and zero work history for 2019, that I had no
            income which is not accurate.
            R[eferee:] That’s what the [UC] Service Center recorded.
            I’m not sure how they -- I don’t know whether -- because
            I do see from your [a]ppeal you included gross records in
            your [a]ppeal, so that may have been what -- they couldn’t
            issue a [d]ecision on gross income, they had to wait until
            you got -- they got your Schedule C and your [Internal
            Revenue Service form] 1040. They needed those, both of
            those documents in order to make a [d]ecision, so.
            C[laimant:] Well, unfortunately all that information is
            in my portal as I told them, and it was in there with --
            before. But I don’t know.

                                         7
              R[eferee:] And I . . .
              C[laimant:] Nobody contact[ed] me again.

C.R. at 76-77 (emphasis added).
              Claimant’s witness5 clarified:

              R[eferee:] Okay. Is there anything else you wanted to add
              or I’m not sure if anything [Claimant’s witness] was going
              to add.
              C[laimant’s] W[itness:] We -- the information on the
              [d]etermination [Claimant] received said that her [PUA]
              would be based on 2019.
              R[eferee:] Correct.
              C[laimant’s] W[itness:] Income, right. So we were
              wondering if that is accurate? I mean, because I guess
              they have all the information now.
              R[eferee:] I have the information now. So I’ll make a
              [d]ecision based on what she’s submitted.
              C[laimant’s] W[itness:] Okay.

C.R. at 77 (emphasis added).
              Finally, the Referee asked again:

              R[eferee:] Okay. Was there anything else then?
              ....
              C[laimant:] Do you need any additional information
              from me?
              R[eferee:] Well, the only issue before me is your financial
              eligibility and based on what you told me, I have enough
              information to make a [d]ecision so I shouldn’t need
              anything else.

       5
        Claimant acted pro se at the Referee hearing. Her witness “[was] [t]here to help
[Claimant] interpret[] all the paperwork from Pennsylvania Unemployment. [Claimant’s witness]
worked for the [B]ureau [of Unemployment] for 20 plus years.” C.R. at 73.
                                             8
             C[laimant:] Okay.

C.R. at 78 (emphasis added).
             Claimant informed the Referee that she had submitted information that
the Department did not consider in making its determination, and wanted to ensure
the Referee had all applicable documents. Confusing the situation even more, the
Referee stated: “[T]he only issue before me is your financial eligibility . . . [,]” when
in fact, the issue before the Referee was the amount of Claimant’s PUA benefits. Id.
             Moreover, in her appeal to the UCBR, Claimant stated, in relevant part:

             I am submitting this further appeal of Referee [d]ecision
             [d]ocket #2021010541, mailed on [June 2, 2021], and/or
             requesting reconsideration/redetermination. According to
             Pennsylvania [UC] Law, my high quarter net income of
             $14,743.00 qualifies for [PUA weekly benefits] of
             $572.00.
             My $14,743[.00] (my gross income for that quarter is
             $18[,]065[.00], but I have calculated my net earnings and
             provided that information. That is how my 2020 PUA was
             determined) high quarter wages were verified by my
             quarterly taxes form submitted to the Pennsylvania
             [Department] of Revenue and copies were sent to the
             Bureau of Unemployment as I provided both my net and
             my gross income.
             I have also submitted copies of [Internal Revenue Service]
             form Schedule C to the Bureau of Unemployment to verify
             my net income of $28,008[.00] for calendar year 2019. I
             own two businesses, Carisak Photography and Thrive
             Space, both shut down and [were] affected by the
             pandemic in March 2020. This proves a sufficient percent
             of income outside my 2019 high quarter. It also proves I
             have qualifying income to receive a [PUA weekly benefit]
             of $572.00.
             PUA [WBA] is to be computed in accordance with the
             same formula and tables to compute [WBAs] under the
             state’s regular [UC] program.
             Furthermore, I am not even sure how the figures were
             computed by my appeal officer as none of them match the
                                           9
            income or paperwork I provided. Could someone explain
            to me how these figures were generated? The findings of
            fact listed on my appeal decision are inaccurate. It appears
            the [R]eferee made up the quarter amounts I made
            regardless of my provided paperwork and tax
            documents as they do not match any of my 2019 quarters.
            I provided the information that was asked for and
            required by the law. We also verified with the [R]eferee
            [] that the [D]epartment was using 2019 income and high
            quarters to determine [PUA]. He stated that was true. He
            stated at the time that he could not see any income except
            for the Thrive Space income despite the fact that both
            my [f]ederal [t]ax Schedule C was provided and that
            my [Pennsylvania] Sales Tax/Income was provided
            numerous times and has been in my portal since April
            2020 and was emailed numerous times as well.
            ....
            . . . . Therefore, my tax documents provided to the Bureau
            of Unemployment provide sufficient required and legal
            information and should be used to determine my [PUA].

C.R. at 91-92 (emphasis added).
            Claimant further reported:

            I received this paperwork in the mail which I have also
            attached. Also attached are the forms I file every month
            that show my gross sales as a business owner in
            [Pennsylvania]. These forms are included and show up
            in my dashboard on [the] PUA portal, so I’m not sure
            why I must resend them but here they are. These are
            my business records. I do not have an employer, I am self-
            employed. My work documents prove my gross sales and
            my business record for the past 18 months. However[,] I
            have calculated my net income and listed it. I have been
            in business since 2005. These are actual filings with the
            [Pennsylvania] state that are legal documents.

C.R. at 92 (emphasis added).

                                         10
              This Court recognizes:

              Under Pennsylvania law, pro se [litigants] are subject to
              the same rules of procedure as are represented [litigants].
              See Commonwealth v. Williams, . . . 896 A.2d 523, 534
              ([Pa.] 2006) (pro se [litigants] are held to same standards
              as licensed attorneys).
              Although the courts may liberally construe materials filed
              by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit
              upon a litigant, and a court cannot be expected to become
              a litigant’s counsel or find more in a written pro se
              submission than is fairly conveyed in the pleading.

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014).                       However, here,
Claimant testified that she submitted all of her paperwork on the UC portal6 as
instructed, and had no reason to suspect that when the Referee informed her that he
had “enough information to make a [d]ecision,” that he, in fact, did not.7 C.R. at 78.
Upon receipt of the Referee decision, and realizing, once again, that her documents
were not considered, Claimant notified the UCBR of the same. Notwithstanding
that Claimant testified that she submitted all of her financial records and only a
portion thereof were considered by the Referee and the UCBR, Claimant was not
given “an opportunity to offer evidence in furtherance of [her] issues[,]” and, thus,
Claimant was denied due process. Quigley, 263 A.3d at 594 (quoting Pa. Bankers
Ass’n, 956 A.2d at 965).

       6
          At oral argument, the UCBR’s counsel explained that the UC portal is a centralized
location where claimants can upload or receive documents electronically. He further represented
to the Court that the UC portal was launched during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the
Department experienced many problems with its roll out due to the high volume of users and the
newness of the system.
        7
          At oral argument, the UCBR’s counsel stated that the Referee does not receive all
documents uploaded in the UC portal. Rather, the only documents uploaded in the UC portal that
are forwarded to the Referee are the documents that the UC Service Center relies upon to make its
determination.

                                               11
             Relative to the Application, Claimant asserts that the UCBR had not
filed material, relevant, and necessary records with the Court that Claimant timely
submitted to the UC Office prior to the Referee hearing, that were provided to the
UCBR before its November 23, 2021 decision, and that were part of the
administrative record.      Claimant, therefore requests leave to supply the
aforementioned records to be included in the certified record. The UCBR rejoins
that the UCBR did not consider any of the evidence being offered to supplement the
record and, consequently, these documents cannot be added to the record in this case.
             This Court has explained:

             An appellate court is limited to considering only those
             facts that have been duly certified in the record on appeal.
             City of Pittsburgh Comm[’n] on Hum[.] [Rels.] v.
             DeFelice, 782 A.2d 586, 593 n. 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).
             For purposes of appellate review, that which is not part of
             the certified record does not exist. Id. Documents
             attached to a brief as an appendix or reproduced record
             may not be considered by an appellate court when they are
             not part of the certified record. Stabler Dev[.] Co[.] v.
             B[d.] of Supervisors of Lower Mt. Bethel T[wp.], 695 A.2d
             882, 887 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) . . . . “[I]t is the
             responsibility of the [petitioner] to supply this Court with
             a complete record for purposes of review. The failure by
             a[ petitioner] to insure that the original record certified for
             appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper
             review constitutes waiver of the issue(s) sought to be
             examined.” Salameh v. Spossey, 731 A.2d 649, 658 (Pa.
             Cmwlth. [1999]) . . . (citation omitted).
B.K. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 36 A.3d 649, 657-58 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
             Here, Claimant is seeking
             inclusion of [her Department records] in the certified
             record of this appeal as a supplemental record pursuant to
             [Rule] . . . 1951(b). Steglik v. Workers’ Comp[.] Appeal
             [Bd.] (Delta Gulf Corp[.]), 755 A.2d 69, 74 n. 3 (Pa.
             Cmwlth. [2000]) . . . ; Williams v. Workmen’s Comp[.]

                                           12
            Appeal [Bd.] (Green Constr[.] Co.), 687 A.2d 428, 431 n.3
            (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

B.K., 36 A.3d at 658. However, because those records were not supplied to, or
considered by the Referee or the UCBR, they are not part of the record as defined
by Rule 1951(a), and cannot be considered by this Court in this appeal. Accordingly,
Claimant’s Application is denied.

                                    Conclusion
            The UCBR erred by affirming the Referee’s decision to calculate
Claimant’s PUA benefits based upon her prorated annual net income instead of the
actual net income in her highest quarter. In addition, the UCBR violated Claimant’s
due process rights by failing to include all necessary documents submitted to the
Department in the record before the Referee.
            For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s order is vacated, and the
matter is remanded to the UCBR to hold an evidentiary hearing and to consider all
of Claimant’s relevant records previously submitted to the Department regarding her
PUA claim, including, but not limited to, Claimant’s “sales tax documents, tax
records, expenses for [her] highest quarter, and bank records.”         C.R. at 58.
Claimant’s Application is denied.

                                      _________________________________
                                      ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

                                        13
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carisa Kozicki,                             :
                  Petitioner                :
                                            :
            v.                              :
                                            :
Unemployment Compensation                   :
Board of Review,                            :   No. 1490 C.D. 2021
                 Respondent                 :

                                    ORDER

            AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2023, the Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review’s (UCBR) November 23, 2021 order is VACATED,
and the matter is REMANDED to the UCBR for further proceedings consistent with
this Opinion.
            Carisa Kozicki’s Application for Leave to Supply Documents Omitted
from the Certified Record Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
1951(b) is DENIED.
            Jurisdiction is relinquished.

                                       _________________________________
                                       ANNE E. COVEY, Judge