Court Opinion

ID: 9948898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 14:09:40.356993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:18.668816
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kim Zimmerman,                                :
                      Petitioner              :
                                              :
      v.                                      :    No. 1499 C.D. 2022
                                              :
Unemployment Compensation                     :    Submitted: February 6, 2024
Board of Review,                              :
                 Respondent                   :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
               HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                       FILED: March 8, 2024
               Kim Zimmerman (Claimant), proceeding pro se, petitions for review of
the September 27, 2022 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
(Board). The order affirmed a Referee’s decision, which found that (1) Claimant failed,
without justifiable cause, to participate in a required Reemployment Services and
Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) session; (2) consequently, she was overpaid regular
unemployment compensation (UC) benefits in the amount of $317.00 for the week
ending May 22, 2021, to which she was not entitled; and (3) as a result, she received a
non-fraud overpayment of Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC)
benefits under Section 2104(f)(2) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic
Security (CARES) Act of 20201 in the amount of $300.00. Upon review, we affirm.

      1
          Section 2104(f)(2) of the CARES Act provides:
(Footnote continued on next page…)
               Claimant opened a new claim for UC benefits effective April 11, 2021.
(Certified Record (C.R.) at 3-6.) On April 26, 2021, Claimant was sent a notification
letter instructing her to schedule and appear for a RESEA session by May 17, 2021.
Claimant did not schedule and report for the RESEA session by May 17, 2021. For the
claim week ending May 22, 2021, Claimant received $317.00 in regular UC benefits
and $300.00 in FPUC benefits. On July 14, 2021, Claimant was sent a Notice of
Determination of Non-Fraud FPUC Overpayment indicating that Claimant was
ineligible for the $317.00 in regular UC benefits “because [she] failed to schedule [her
first] RESEA session” and that she had received a resultant non-fraud overpayment of
FPUC benefits in the amount of $300.00.2 Id. at 12-14.
               Claimant appealed and a Notice of Hearing was mailed to Claimant on
March 25, 2022, scheduling the hearing for April 8, 2022. Id. at 24-26, 66-72.
Claimant did not appear to offer testimony or evidence. Id. at 74-77. On April 11,
2022, the Referee issued a decision concluding that there was no competent evidence
in the record to support a finding that Claimant had a justifiable cause for failing to
schedule and attend the mandatory RESEA session by May 17, 2021. Id. at 79-88.
The Referee concluded that Claimant was thus ineligible for regular UC benefits under
Section 402(j) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)3 for the week at issue

               In the case of individuals who have received amounts of [FPUC] . . . to
               which they were not entitled, the State shall require such individuals to
               repay the amounts of such [FPUC] . . . to the State agency . . . .

15 U.S.C. § 9023(f)(2).
       2
          The CARES Act provides that individuals entitled to receive UC benefits could be paid
“regular compensation” in the amount determined under state law, plus an additional amount for
“pandemic unemployment compensation.” 15 U.S.C. § 9023.
       3
         Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(j).
Section 402(j) of the Law provides that an individual is ineligible for benefits for any week in which
he/she fails to participate in reemployment services, unless “(1) the employe has completed such
services; or (2) there is justifiable cause for the employe’s failure to participate in such services.” Id.

                                                    2
and this, in turn, rendered her not qualified for FPUC benefits under Section 2104 of
the CARES Act. Id. The Referee concluded that Claimant was overpaid FPUC
benefits for the week at issue in the amount of $300.00, but concluded there was no
credible evidence in the record to support a conclusion that Claimant was at fault for
the overpayment. Id.
             Claimant appealed to the Board. By decision dated July 26, 2022, the
Board remanded the matter to the Referee to schedule another hearing to receive
testimony and evidence on Claimant’s reason for her nonappearance at the April 8,
2022 hearing. Id. at 100-01. The Board clarified, however, that if it found that
Claimant lacked proper cause for her nonappearance at the April 8, 2022 hearing, it
would not consider any of the new testimony or evidence concerning why Claimant
failed to attend the first RESEA session. Id. The remand hearing was scheduled for
August 15, 2022. Claimant appeared and the Referee first heard her testimony
regarding the cause of her nonappearance at the April 8, 2022 hearing. Claimant
explained that she received the Notice of the April 8, 2022 hearing and she read it, but
she “did not realize it was for her [UC claim].” (Transcript of Proceedings, August 15,
2022, at 7; C.R. at 172.) She testified that she takes “a lot of medication that makes
[her] tired.” Id. She thought the Notice of Hearing was about “another situation,” she
“did not read it correctly,” she was “very confused,” and she “misunderstood it.” Id.
Turning to the merits, i.e., her failure to attend the first RESEA session by the May 17,
2021 deadline, Claimant admitted she did not attend a RESEA session by the deadline
because she had “some illnesses and a lot of issues.” Id. at 15; C.R. at 180. She
explained that she was sent a second notice that required her to attend a RESEA session
by June 1, 2021, which she did. Id. at 8-10; C.R. at 173-75.

                                           3
               By order mailed September 27, 2022, the Board affirmed the Referee’s
April 11, 2022 decision. The Board concluded that Claimant lacked good cause for her
nonappearance at the April 8, 2022 hearing. Specifically, the Board noted that

               [C]laimant failed to appear because she is “having another
               situation with court and . . . misread the hearing notice and
               [she] didn't understand it.” [C]laimant also indicated that
               she takes “a lot of medication that makes [her] tired” and she
               “just read the [hearing notice] thinking it was something
               else.” The Board finds this is not good cause for her
               nonappearance.
Id. at 183. In light of its conclusion in this regard, the Board did not consider the
testimony and evidence on the merits offered at the remand hearing on the issue of
whether Claimant established proper cause for failing to attend the first RESEA session
within the required deadline. Id. The Board held:

               The decision of the Referee is affirmed. [Claimant] is
               ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(j) of the Law,
               and benefits are denied. [C]laimant has a non-fault
               overpayment of regular UC benefits totaling $317[.00] for
               the claim week ending May 22, 2021, which is recoupable
               pursuant to Section 804(b) of the Law. [C]laimant has a non-
               fraud overpayment of FPUC benefits totaling $300[.00] for
               the claim week ending May 22, 2021, which is recoupable
               pursuant to Section 2104(f) of the federal CARES Act.
Id. at 184.
               Claimant timely appealed the Board’s Order.4 Claimant’s brief contains
virtually no argument. The entirety of Claimant’s argument section of her pro se brief
is as follows:

       4
        This Court’s standard of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights
were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are
supported by substantial competent evidence. Key v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
687 A.2d 409, 411 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).

                                                  4
             I was informed by the Career Advisor at PA Careerlink –
             Ashley Scholenberger [–] that I had complied with all of the
             RESEA requirements. In my appeal I ha[ve] included all
             email correspondence to Ashley confirming my compliance.
             She assured me at the time that it should not interfere with
             my unemployment.
(Claimant’s Br. at 9.)
             As explained, the Board did not pass upon the reasons Claimant did not
attend the first RESEA session or consider that she had since complied with the RESEA
requirements. The Board only addressed Claimant’s lack of good cause for not
appearing at the April 8, 2022 hearing before the Referee and her resultant ineligibility
for regular UC benefits and FPUC benefits. The only statement in Claimant’s brief
that even remotely addresses the Board’s September 27, 2022 order appears in a single
sentence in her Statement of Questions Involved, which reads: “the reason [she] did
not attend the [April 8, 2022] hearing is because [she] thought it pertained to another
matter.” (Claimant’s Br. at 6.) Construing Claimant’s pro se brief liberally, Smithley
v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 8 A.3d 1027, 1029 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2010), we shall treat her appeal as a request to review the Board’s September 27, 2022
order.
             Under the regulations governing hearings, if a party “fails to attend a
hearing without proper cause, the hearing may be held in [her] absence.” 34 Pa. Code
§ 101.51. This Court has previously held a party’s negligence in misreading or
misunderstanding a notice that is correct and not misleading does not constitute “proper
cause.” In Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1985), the claimant did not attend a hearing before a referee. The
claimant argued that he misread the correct date on the hearing notice and argued that
this constituted “proper cause” to justify his failure to attend the referee’s hearing.

                                           5
Savage, 491 A.2d at 949-50. This Court disagreed and held that “a claimant’s own
negligence is insufficient ‘proper cause,’ as a matter of law.” Id. at 950.
             In Eat‘N Park Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation
Board of Review, 970 A.2d 492, 494-95 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), this Court reaffirmed the
holding in Savage. There, although the employer was “forthright and candid about
[failing to provide the referee with correct telephone directions],” it still constituted an
admission of fault for the employer’s nonappearance. Id. at 495. Consequently, the
employer lacked the requisite proper cause for its nonappearance at the hearing, and
the Board correctly determined it was improper to reopen the hearing. Id. at 494-95.
             Here, as in Eat ‘N Park Hospitality Group, Claimant’s testimony at the
remand hearing evidenced that she was at fault for her nonappearance. The Notice of
Hearing mailed March 25, 2022, explicitly stated the date and time and location of the
hearing. (C.R. at 66.) Claimant acknowledged that she received the Notice of Hearing
but misunderstood it and did not read it correctly.            Consequently, Claimant’s
nonappearance was due to her own fault. Thus, the Board did not err when it found
that Claimant lacked proper cause for her nonappearance.
             Under Section 402(j) of the Law, Claimant is ineligible for benefits if she
failed to attend the RESEA session by the specified date, unless she had justifiable
cause for not attending. Because Claimant’s testimony at the remand hearing was not
considered by the Board, the Board had no basis to determine that she had good cause
for not attending the first RESEA session. Without credible evidence that Claimant
had justifiable cause for not attending the RESEA session, the Board correctly
concluded that Claimant was ineligible for regular UC benefits for the week ending
May 22, 2021, under Section 402(j) of the Law and, consequently, the FPUC benefits

                                             6
she received that week in the amount of $300.00 were an overpayment that must be
repaid under Section 804(a) and (b) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 874(a),5 (b).6
                For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the Board did not err in
finding Claimant did not have good cause to miss the April 8, 2022 hearing, and that
she was overpaid $300.00, subject to recoupment under Section 804(b) of the Law.
                Accordingly, we affirm.

                                                   ________________________________
                                                   PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

       5
           Section 804(a) of the Law provides:

                Any person who by reason of his fault has received any sum as
                compensation under this act to which he was not entitled, shall be liable
                to repay to the Unemployment Compensation Fund to the credit of the
                Compensation Account a sum equal to the amount so received by him
                ....
43 P.S. § 874(a).
        6
          Section 804(b)(1) states:

               Any person who other than by reason of his fault has received with
               respect to a benefit year any sum as compensation under this act to
               which he was not entitled shall not be liable to repay such sum but shall
               be liable to have such sum deducted from any future compensation
               payable to him . . . .
43 P.S. § 874(b)(1).

                                                   7
           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kim Zimmerman,                       :
                 Petitioner          :
                                     :
     v.                              :    No. 1499 C.D. 2022
                                     :
Unemployment Compensation            :
Board of Review,                     :
                 Respondent          :

                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2024, the September 27, 2022 order
of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                         ________________________________
                                         PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge