Court Opinion

ID: 9889422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 14:09:37.391418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:14.667498
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Megiana Gjini,                                  :
                              Petitioner        :
                                                :
               v.                               : No. 531 C.D. 2022
                                                : Submitted: April 6, 2023
Unemployment Compensation                       :
Board of Review,                                :
                    Respondent                  :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
               HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WALLACE                                             FILED: October 10, 2023

       Megiana Gjini (Claimant) petitions for review of the order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) mailed April 25, 2022,
which affirmed the Unemployment Compensation Referee’s (Referee) decision
finding Claimant ineligible for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)1 and
finding a non-fraud PUA overpayment of $3,600. After review, we affirm.

1
  “PUA provides up to 79 weeks of benefits to qualifying individuals who are otherwise able to
work and available for work within the meaning of applicable state law, except that they are
unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work due to COVID-19-related
reasons . . . .” Office of Unemployment Compensation, Pennsylvania’s Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance Portal, https://pua.benefits.uc.pa.gov/vosnet/Default.aspx (last visited Oct. 6, 2023).
         On May 15, 2020, Claimant filed an application for PUA benefits, effective
March 22, 2020. Certified Record (C.R.) at 178. For the weeks of April 11, 2020,
through July 25, 2020, and October 17, 2020, through October 24, 2020, Claimant
filed a claim for and received $3,600 in PUA. Id. On November 25, 2020, the
Department of Labor and Industry, Office of Unemployment Compensation Benefits
(Department) issued a Notice of Determination (Notice) indicating Claimant was not
entitled to the $3,600 she received in PUA benefits under Section 2102(h) of the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (CARES Act). 2,3 Id.
at 20. The Department noted that because Claimant claimed PUA benefits while she
qualified to receive regular Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits, this was a
non-fraud overpayment. Id.
         On November 27, 2020, Claimant appealed the Department’s Notice. On July
28, 2021, and August 16, 2021, the Referee held telephone hearings at which

2
    Section 2102(h) of the CARES Act provides:

         Except as otherwise provided in this section or to the extent there is a conflict
         between this section and part 625 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, such part
         625 shall apply to this section as if--

                (1) the term “COVID-19 public health emergency” were substituted for the
                term “major disaster” each place it appears in such part 625; and

                (2) the term “pandemic” were substituted for the term “disaster” each place
                it appears in such part 625.

15 U.S.C. § 9021(h).

3
    15 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9141.

                                                  2
Claimant and her counsel participated.4 In relevant part, Claimant testified she
worked for Grip-Flex, which temporarily closed due to COVID-19 in March 2020.
Id. at 147. Further, Claimant testified she applied for PUA benefits because she
received a Notice from the Department on April 6, 2020, indicating she was not
eligible for UC benefits. Id. at 148.
       After the August 16, 2021 hearing, the Referee issued an order affirming the
Department’s Notice. Id. at 152-62. Relevant to this appeal, the Referee concluded
Claimant was ineligible for PUA benefits under Section 2102(a)(3)(A)(i) of the
CARES Act5 as Claimant was eligible for UC benefits during that time. Id. at 154.
Further, the Referee determined Claimant did not engage in fraud to obtain PUA
benefits, and, therefore, a non-fraud overpayment was established under Section
2102(h) of the CARES Act. Id. at 155.
       Claimant appealed to the Board, which mailed its decision on April 25, 2022.
Id. at 178-83. Relevant to this appeal,6 the Board affirmed the Referee’s order
determining Claimant had a non-fraud overpayment subject to repayment under

4
 Due to translation and technical difficulties, two scheduled hearings did not proceed, and the
Referee continued the July 28, 2021 hearing to August 16, 2021.

5
 Section 2102(a)(3)(A)(i) of the CARES Act provides a “covered individual” is an individual who
“is not eligible for regular compensation or extended benefits under State or Federal law or
pandemic emergency unemployment compensation.” 15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(A)(i).

6
  The Board vacated portions of the Referee’s order that pertained to other related appeals and
addressed those issues in separate orders. Consequently, by order dated July 29, 2022, this Court
denied the Board’s Application for Relief in the Form of a Motion for Consolidation of Cases and
ordered this appeal proceed seriately with the petitions for review filed at 532 C.D. 2022, related
to Claimant’s Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation benefits, and 533 C.D. 2022,
related to denial of Claimant’s PUA benefits. Order, 7/29/22. Thus, we address those petitions
for review in separate memorandum opinions and orders. See Gjini v. Unemployment Comp. Bd.
of Rev. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 532 C.D. 2022, filed Oct. 10, 2023); Gjini v. Unemployment Comp. Bd.
of Rev. (Pa. Cmwlth. No., 533 C.D. 2022, filed Oct. 10, 2023).

                                                3
Section 2102(d)(4) of the CARES Act.7,8 Id. Claimant timely filed a Petition for
Review (Petition) in this Court.
       On appeal, Claimant argues the Board erred by failing to consider the
overpayment to Claimant was not Claimant’s fault and by failing to consider whether
repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience under Claimant’s
circumstances. Claimant’s Br. at 2. In response, the Board asserts Claimant failed
to preserve a challenge to the Board’s findings or its legal conclusion, contending
the only issue Claimant raises on appeal is the waiver of her overpayment, which
she failed to raise at any point during the administrative process. Board’s Br. at 12.
       This Court reviews unemployment compensation orders for violations of a
claimant’s constitutional rights, violations of agency practice and procedure, and
other errors of law. 2 Pa. C.S. § 704. We also review whether substantial evidence
supports the findings of fact necessary to sustain the Board’s decisions. Id. The
Board is the fact-finder in these cases and is entitled to assess witness credibility and
weight of the evidence. Hubbard v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 252 A.3d
1181, 1185 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (citation omitted). Absent a showing of due
cause, it is beyond our Court’s scope of review to address questions, other than the
validity of a statute, not raised before the Board. 2 Pa. C.S. § 703(a).

7
  Section 2102(d)(4) of the CARES Act grants a state authority to waive the repayment by
providing that individuals who have received PUA to which they were not entitled are required to
repay the amounts of PUA, except if the state waives the repayment upon a determination that the
payment of PUA was not the fault of the individual and repayment would be “contrary to equity
and good conscience.” 15 U.S.C. § 9021(d)(4).

8
   To recover a non-fault overpayment, the Department will deduct “from any future benefit
payments during the benefit year when the benefit was paid and the three-year period immediately
following that benefit year. The deductions may not exceed one-third of the weekly benefit rate
. . . . Voluntary repayment is also accepted.” Office of Unemployment Compensation,
Overpayment of Benefits, https://www.uc.pa.gov/unemployment-benefits/overpayment-of-
benefits/Pages/default.aspx (last visited Oct. 6, 2023).

                                               4
      The CARES Act provides for PUA to be provided to any “covered individual”
while such individual is unemployed or unable to work due to COVID-19, during
the weeks in which the individual is not entitled to any other unemployment
compensation. 15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(5). A “covered individual” is an individual who
“is not eligible for regular compensation or extended benefits under State or Federal
law or pandemic emergency unemployment compensation.” 15 U.S.C. §
9021(a)(3)(A)(i).
      Here, in the Board’s decision, it indicated Claimant’s overpayment was
subject to repayment under Section 2102(d)(4) of the CARES Act, which grants the
state waiver authority upon a determination that the payment of PUA was not the
fault of the individual and repayment would be “contrary to equity and good
conscience.” 15 U.S.C. § 9021(d)(4). Notably, Claimant does not dispute the
overpayment.     Instead, Claimant cites this Court’s decision in Deklinski v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 37 A.3d 1262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012),
to support her argument that it would be contrary to equity and good conscience
under these circumstances to require repayment. Claimant’s Br. at 7.
      Claimant correctly points out that in Deklinski, this Court noted that it is
contrary to “equity and good conscience” to require a claimant to repay UC benefits
when doing so would create a financial hardship. Deklinski, 37 A.3d at 1264.
However, in Deklinski, the claimant requested a waiver of repayment with her appeal
to the referee. Id. at 1263. The referee denied the claimant’s waiver request because
despite the overpayment not being her fault, she failed to demonstrate that repayment
would cause her financial hardship. Id. After the Board affirmed the referee’s
decision, this Court held the Board erred by not addressing the claimant’s financial
hardship claim after she raised that issue before the referee and presented evidence

                                         5
to support her position. Id. Therefore, this Court remanded for findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the merits of the claimant’s financial hardship claim. Id. at
1264.
        The case here is more akin to the circumstances set forth in Rouse v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 41 A.3d 211 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
In Rouse, the referee affirmed the Department’s determination that the claimant had
a non-fraud overpayment of UC benefits. Id. at 212. The claimant appealed to the
Board and argued she should not have to repay the UC benefits because the
overpayment was not her fault. Id. The Board held the issue of whether the claimant
could have the repayment waived was not before it and she would have to request a
waiver from the Department. Id. On appeal to this Court, the claimant continued to
assert waiver of repayment as her sole claim. Id. at 213. This Court affirmed the
Board’s decision and explained that

        [t]he litigation [before the referee and the Board] concerned only
        whether [the c]laimant had received an overpayment of benefits and
        whether any overpayment was the result of fraud. That litigation
        determined that [the c]laimant received a non-fraud overpayment, and
        [the c]laimant does not challenge that conclusion.             As the
        [Department’s] instructions explained, a request for a waiver of
        repayment must be decided in a separate proceeding. The request must
        first be made to the Department by submitting the appropriate form and
        an appeal can then be taken if a waiver is denied.

Id.
        Likewise, in addressing whether a claimant’s waiver of repayment of benefits
request should be granted, this Court in Gnipp v. Unemployment Compensation
Board of Review, 82 A.3d 522, 526 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013), held that where the claimant
failed to raise the issue of financial hardship before the referee, the Board did not err
in limiting its review solely to whether the claimant was eligible for UC benefits

                                           6
during the relevant dates. This Court specified that the “crucial part of the process
is ensuring that a record is made before the fact finder on whether repayment will be
contrary to equity and good conscience.” Id.
       Similarly, in this case, the only issues before the Referee and the Board
concerned whether Claimant received an overpayment of PUA benefits and whether
the PUA overpayment was fraudulent. Claimant did not raise the issue of waiver
either by submitting a form requesting a waiver or raising the issue of financial
hardship or repayment before the Referee or the Board. Thus, there is no record
evidence of whether repayment of the overpaid PUA benefits would cause Claimant
financial hardship or is contrary to equity and good conscience. As this issue was
not before the Board, it is beyond this Court’s scope of review. See 2 Pa. C.S. §
703(a). Accordingly, the Board’s order is affirmed.9

                                                   ______________________________
                                                   STACY WALLACE, Judge

9
 As the Board points out in its Brief, Claimant is “not without remedy . . . . Claimant has the
opportunity to request a waiver of repayment by contacting the Department and requesting an
Overpayment Waiver Questionnaire Form (Form UC-1656). After Claimant completes the Form
UC-1656 by providing the necessary financial information, the Department can then rule upon her
waiver request.” Board’s Br. at 12-13.

                                              7
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Megiana Gjini,                       :
                      Petitioner     :
                                     :
            v.                       : No. 531 C.D. 2022
                                     :
Unemployment Compensation            :
Board of Review,                     :
                    Respondent       :

                                   ORDER

     AND NOW, this 10th day of October 2023, the Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review’s April 25, 2022 order is AFFIRMED.

                                     ______________________________
                                     STACY WALLACE, Judge