Court Opinion

ID: 9393130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 15:07:09.337507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:51.215847
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Abdalla Amin,                                    :
                       Petitioner                :
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
Unemployment Compensation                        :
Board of Review,                                 :    No. 773 C.D. 2022
                 Respondent                      :    Submitted: March 24, 2023

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

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                               FILED: May 9, 2023

                Petitioner, Abdalla Amin (Claimant), pro se, seeks review of an order
of the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review (Board) dated June 28,
2022. The Board affirmed a referee’s decision dismissing Claimant’s appeal of two
initial determinations by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Office
of UC Benefits (Department) that denied UC benefits and found Claimant received
non-fault overpayments of UC benefits. The referee concluded, and the Board
affirmed, that Claimant’s appeal from the Department’s initial determinations was
untimely under Section 501(e) of the UC Law,1 43 P.S. § 821(e). Upon review, we
affirm the Board’s order.

      1
          Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 821(e).
               On September 29, 2020, the Department mailed Claimant a notice of
an initial determination denying UC benefits because Claimant failed to meet his
burden to prove a valid work authorization issued by the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services. Certified Record (C.R.) at 21, 71, 80. The notice
provided appeal instructions and stated Claimant had to appeal within 15 days, or by
October 14, 2020. Id. at 36, 73, 80.2 On June 11, 2021, the Department sent
Claimant a notice of an initial determination of a non-fault overpayment. Id. at 36,
71.   Thirty-six days later, on July 27, 2021, Claimant appealed both initial
determinations. Id. at 32, 35, 43, 80. In his appeal document, Claimant did not
address the timeliness of his appeal; he merely alleged that he was not working
during the periods for which he received UC benefits. Id. at 41.
               The Department issued a notice of a referee hearing concerning
Claimant’s appeal. C.R. at 53. The notice listed the issues to be addressed at the
hearing, specifically including whether Claimant filed a timely appeal from the
initial determinations. Id. The referee held a telephone hearing on February 9, 2022.
Id. at 53. At the hearing, Claimant acknowledged that he received the notices of
determination. Id. at 73, 80. He stated he did not remember when he sent his appeal,
but that he resent it on July 27, 2021. Id. at 74. However, the record contains no
evidence of any earlier appeal. Id. at 80.
               On February 9, 2022, following the telephone hearing, the referee
issued a decision dismissing Claimant’s appeal as untimely.                  C.R. at 79-82.
Claimant timely appealed to the Board from the referee’s dismissal. Id. at 89-95.
On June 28, 2022, the Board issued an order affirming the referee’s dismissal of
Claimant’s appeal of the initial determinations. Id. at 106-08. Before the Board,

      2
          The appeal deadline was expanded from 15 to 21 days as of July 24, 2021.

                                               2
Claimant argued that the referee did not allow him to offer evidence; however, the
hearing transcript shows that the referee asked Claimant twice whether he had
anything else he wanted to offer, including evidence regarding timeliness, and he
said he did not. Id. at 74, 77, 106-07. The Board found no evidence of fraud or
administrative breakdown that would excuse Claimant’s untimely appeal. Id. at 107.
             Section 501(e) of the UC Law provides that a party has 21 (formerly
15) days to appeal a referee’s decision to the Board. 43 P.S. § 821(e). The
Department’s associated regulation calculates the deadline for the appeal of a UC
determination from the date the decision was delivered personally or placed into the
mail. 34 Pa. Code § 101.82. If an appeal is not timely filed, the determination
becomes final, and the Board does not have the requisite jurisdiction to consider the
matter. Hessou v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 942 A.2d 194, 197-98 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2008) (citing Darroch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 627 A.2d 1235
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)). An appeal filed even one day after the appeal period is
untimely. Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198 (citing Dumberth v. Unemployment Comp. Bd.
of Rev., 837 A.2d 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (en banc)).
             The Board may consider an untimely appeal only in limited
circumstances. Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198 (citing Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev.
v. Hart, 348 A.2d 497 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975)). A claimant seeking to establish the right
to an untimely appeal bears a heavy burden, because the statutory time limit for
appeals is mandatory. Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198 (citing Blast Intermediate Unit No.
17 v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 645 A.2d 447 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)). To
satisfy his burden, a claimant must show fraudulent behavior or manifestly wrongful
or negligent conduct by the administrative authority or non-negligent conduct
beyond the claimant’s control that caused the delay. Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198 (citing

                                         3
Bass v. Commonwealth, 401 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 1979)). “[F]ailure to file an appeal
within fifteen days, without an adequate excuse for the late filing, mandates
dismissal of the appeal.” Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198 (quoting U.S. Postal Serv. v.
Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 620 A.2d 572, 573 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993))
(additional quotation marks omitted).
             Here, the record is bare of any evidence of a timely appeal from the
Department’s initial determinations. The record is likewise bare of evidence that
Claimant had an adequate excuse for the late filing. As noted above, although
Claimant apparently argued to the Board that the referee somehow kept him from
submitting evidence regarding the timeliness of his appeal, the hearing transcript
clearly reflects that the referee asked Claimant twice whether he wished to offer any
additional evidence concerning the timeliness issue, and that Claimant responded in
the negative both times. C.R. at 74, 77, 106-07. We agree with the Board that the
record contains no evidence of fraud or administrative breakdown that would excuse
Claimant’s untimely appeal. See id. at 107. We further observe that there is no
record evidence of non-negligent conduct beyond Claimant’s control that caused the
delay. Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the Board’s order.

                                        __________________________________
                                        CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

                                          4
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Abdalla Amin,                        :
                 Petitioner          :
                                     :
           v.                        :
                                     :
Unemployment Compensation            :
Board of Review,                     :   No. 773 C.D. 2022
                 Respondent          :

                                ORDER

           AND NOW, this 9th day of May, 2023, the June 28, 2022 order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.

                                   __________________________________
                                   CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge