Court Opinion

ID: 9838428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 14:08:02.342553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:26.399876
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tayseer Albeetar,                       :
                    Petitioner          :
                                        :
            v.                          :
                                        :
Unemployment Compensation               :
Board of Review,                        :   No. 1278 C.D. 2022
                 Respondent             :   Submitted: May 26, 2023

BEFORE:     HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
            HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
            HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                     FILED: September 6, 2023

            Tayseer Albeetar (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) dated June 24, 2022. The
Board affirmed a Referee’s decision that Claimant’s appeal from a redetermination
of the Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation
(Department), was untimely. We quash the appeal.

                                 I. Background
            The certified record indicates that Claimant, a self-employed Uber
driver, filed an application for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits on June
2, 2020. Certified Record (CR) 005. He reported that his gross salary for 2019 had
been $5,000.00 per month. CR 003. He reported loss of work due to the COVID-
19 pandemic. CR 007.
                Claimant was initially awarded Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
(PUA) benefits pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
of 2020 (CARES Act),1 subsequently amended by the continued Assistance for
Unemployed Workers Act of 20202 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,3 and
applicable federal regulations.4 See CR 012. However, on May 12, 2021, the
Department’s Office of UC Benefits issued a redetermination that Claimant’s actual
2019 employment income for UC benefit calculation purposes was not $5,000.00
per month, but $1,714.75 per quarter, a total annual income of $6,859.00. Id.
Therefore, the Department determined that Claimant was eligible for a weekly
benefit amount (WBA) of only $195.00 rather than the $528.00 that he had been
receiving. Id.; see also CR 048. The redetermination included information on
appealing but also stated:
                If you disagree with this redetermination, you have the
                right to appeal under PA Law and your appeal must be
                received or postmarked by 05/27/2021. However, if you
                have documentation which you have not already submitted
                that you feel will increase the WBA, please submit it to the
                Department by one of the methods above and request a
                redetermination rather than file an appeal. You will have
                the right to appeal the redetermination.

CR 013.         Claimant apparently alleges that he chose to submit additional
documentation to the Department pursuant to the quoted information. See CR 046.

      1
          15 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9141.
      2
          Pub. L. No.116-260, 134 Stat. 1182.
      3
          Pub. L. No. 117-2, 135 Stat. 4.
      4
          20 C.F.R. §§ 625.1 – 625.30 & Appendices (1989).

                                                2
However, he does not allege that he either requested or received a later
redetermination based on any new information he submitted. In any event, he does
not dispute that he did not immediately appeal the May 12, 2021 redetermination.
              On June 24, 2021, Claimant sent an email message seeking to appeal
the May 12, 2021 redetermination. CR 019. As the basis for his appeal, Claimant
stated that he had received a letter regarding his PUA benefits, indicating that his
income in 2019 was only $6859.00; however, his 2019 tax return reflected income
of $47,202.00.5 Id. The Department’s appeal review information noted that the
appeal, Docket Number 2021018924-AT, was untimely. CR 017.
              A UC Referee scheduled a telephone hearing on Claimant’s appeal.
The hearing notice listed the issues to be decided as: “1) Whether [Claimant] filed
a timely and valid appeal from the initial determination(s). 2) Whether [C]laimant
is financially eligible for a higher PUA weekly benefit amount. 3) Whether
[C]laimant is overpaid due to receiving [PUA].” CR 029; see also CR 044. Notably,
although the Referee’s scheduling notice in the certified record refers only to the
appeal at Docket Number 2021018924-AT, the transcript of testimony lists a second
appeal, Docket Number 2021017190-AT, as well. CR 042-43. The second appeal
apparently related to a “Notice of Determination [of] Non-Fraud PUA
Overpayment” with a mailing date of June 21, 2021. CR 044. The overpayment
determination was evidently based on the previous WBA reduction that was the
subject of the purportedly untimely appeal at Docket Number 2021018924-AT. Id.

       5
        In his testimony at the telephone hearing before the Referee, Claimant explained that
$47,202.00 was his gross income for 2019, and $6859.00 was his net income after expenses. CR
048. Claimant asserted, without citing any legal authority, that his income for PUA purposes was
supposed to be based on gross income rather than net income. Id.

                                               3
The reference to overpayment in the list of issues presumably referred to the appeal
at Docket Number 2021017190-AT.
             The Referee took testimony relating to both appeals at the hearing. See
CR 044-50.      Regarding the timeliness of his appeal of the May 12, 2021
redetermination, and notwithstanding the written appeal instructions included with
the notice of that redetermination, Claimant testified that he “wasn’t familiar that
there is assistance called Appeal” and did not know he could file an appeal until he
spoke with a Department employee sometime later. CR 049.
             On December 4, 2021, the Referee issued a decision relating to the
timeliness of Claimant’s appeal of the May 12, 2021 redetermination at Docket
Number 2021018924-AT. CR 054-56. The Referee found as facts that the Notice
of Determination informed Claimant that his deadline to appeal was May 27, 2021,
that he did not file an appeal until June 24, 2021, and that he “ was not misinformed
nor in any way misled regarding the right of appeal or the need to appeal.” CR 055.
Noting that she lacked jurisdiction to allow an untimely appeal, the Referee
dismissed Claimant’s appeal. CR 056-57.
             Claimant appealed to the Board from the Referee’s decision. CR 064-
66.   That appeal, which related to the Referee’s decision at Docket Number
2021018924-AT, was docketed as Number 2021002964-BR before the Board. In
that appeal, Claimant challenged only the substance of the May 12, 2021
redetermination that reduced his WBA. CR 064-65. He did not argue that the
Referee had erred in dismissing his appeal as untimely. See id. By order dated June
24, 2022, the Board adopted the Referee’s findings and conclusions and affirmed the
Referee’s dismissal of Claimant’s appeal as untimely.        CR 075.     The Board
explained, in pertinent part:

                                         4
                On appeal, [C]laimant complains that his issues related to
                the reduction in his [WBA] were not corrected.
                Unfortunately, the Board and the Referees do not have
                jurisdiction to review the underlying determination
                because [C]laimant filed an untimely appeal. The fact that
                [C]laimant did not fully comprehend the [re]determination
                or its effect does not warrant accepting the appeal nunc pro
                tunc (now for then). Therefore, the [re]determination
                reducing[C]laimant’s [WBA] to $195 per week stands as
                final.

Id.6 This appeal followed.

                                         II. Discussion
                Claimant’s sole argument on appeal is that the Board mistook what
order he was appealing and therefore erred in concluding that the appeal was
untimely. Claimant maintains that his appeal to the Board on June 24, 2021 was
timely in relation to the “Notice of Determination [of] Non-Fraud Overpayment”
dated June 21, 2021. See CR 044. However, this argument is without merit in this
appeal.

       6
           The Board opined further:
                Nevertheless, even if [C]laimant had filed a timely appeal, the
                [re]determination appears correct based on [C]laimant’s 2019 tax
                information. The regulations for Disaster Unemployment
                Assistance must be applied when calculating the weekly benefit
                amount for . . . PUA[]. It requires the calculation of [C]laimant’s
                [WBA] based on net income from the taxable year. As presented
                on [C]laimant’s 2019 Schedule C, he had a net profit of $6,859. To
                determine a weekly amount under state law provision, this amount
                must be pro-rated to four financial quarters. The prorated amount:
                $1,714, on the state table entitles a claimant to only $68 per week.
                Therefore, it appears correct that [C]laimant was entitled to the
                minimum PUA [WBA] of $195.00.
CR 075-76 (emphasis in original).

                                                 5
              First, as stated above, Claimant did not assert before the Board that his
appeal from the redetermination of May 12, 2021 was timely.7 See CR 064-65. As
this Court has explained previously, the Board’s regulations require an appellant to
state on the appeal form the reasons for the appeal; any reason not stated on the
appeal form to the Board is not preserved for a further appeal to this Court. Merida
v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 543 A.2d 593, 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (citing
former 34 Pa. Code § 101.82; the referenced language is now contained in 34 Pa.
Code § 101.81(c)(4)); see also Green v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. (Pa.
Cmwlth., No. 844 C.D. 2020, filed Dec. 22, 2021), slip op. at 7 (citing Merida and
observing that “failure to preserve issues before the Board results in waiver of those
issues”). Accordingly, Claimant has waived the timeliness issue by failing to
preserve it before the Board.
              Even if Claimant had not waived the issue, the appeal he is attempting
to assert is not properly before this Court. Claimant’s sole argument in support of
timeliness is that his appeal filed on June 24, 2021 was timely because it appealed a
determination issued on June 21, 2021. However, as explained above, the record is
clear that the June 21, 2021 determination was the “Notice of Determination [of]
Non-Fraud PUA Overpayment” at Docket Number 2021017190-AT. As explained
below, no appeal of the June 21, 2021 determination is properly before us.
              On September 27, 2022, upon receiving a copy of the Board’s separate
decision on Claimant’s appeal of the June 21, 2021 determination, this Court served
Claimant with a notice that provided, inter alia:
              The Court has received your recent communication
              indicating your intention to appeal from a decision of the
              agency listed at the end of this notice. The Pennsylvania
       7
        He likewise did not mention the issue of whether his appeal of the June 21, 2021 “Notice
of Determination [of] Non-Fraud Overpayment” was timely. See CR 064-65.
                                               6
             Rules of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.) require that in
             order to perfect your appeal you must file a petition for
             review with this Court . . . . [U]nless your petition for
             review is filed and the filing fee (if any) is paid within 30
             days of the date of this notice, the Court will take no
             further action in this matter. See Pa.R.A.P. 121, 1512,
             1514; Commonwealth Court Internal Operating
             Procedures § 211[.]

Albeetar v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1278 C.D. 2022),
Notice dated September 27, 2022 (emphasis in original).
             In response, Claimant filed a single petition for review regarding both
the May 12, 2021 redetermination reducing his WBA at Docket Number
2021018924-AT and the June 21, 2021 “Notice of Determination [of] Non-Fraud
PUA Overpayment” at Docket Number 2021017190-AT. On December 7, 2022,
this Court issued an order that stated, in its entirety:
             NOW, December 7, 2022, upon review of the above
             matter, on October 26, 2022, the Court received
             [Claimant’s] petition for review indicating his intent to
             appeal two separate [Board] decisions dated and mailed on
             June 24, 2022. Upon review of the two [Board] decisions,
             docketed at 2021002964-BR and 2021003098-BR, each
             [Board] decision involves the appeal of a different Referee
             decision.
             Accordingly, this Court will consider the petition for
             review in this matter as an appeal of only the [Board]
             decision at docket number 2021002964-BR. If [Claimant]
             wishes to also appeal the [Board] decision at docket
             number 2021003098-BR, he must file, within 30 days of
             the date of this Order, a separate petition for review for the
             [Board] decision at docket number 2021003098-BR. The
             October 26, 2022, filing date of the initial petition for
             review shall be preserved as the appeal date of any
             subsequent petition for review challenging the [Board]
             decision at docket number 2021003098-BR. [Claimant’s]
             failure to file a separate petition for review shall result in

                                            7
              the abandonment of any appeal from the [Board] decision
              at docket number 2021003098-BR.

Albeetar, Order dated December 7, 2022.8 It is clear, therefore, that this appeal
relates only to the May 12, 2021 redetermination reducing Claimant’s WBA, his
appeal of which on June 24, 2021 was untimely.
              For these reasons, Claimant’s appeal is quashed.

                                           __________________________________
                                           CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

President Judge Cohn Jubelirer concurs in the result only.

       8
         A search of this Court’s electronic docketing system revealed no separate petition for
review relating to the Board’s order at Docket Number 2021003098-BR regarding the June 21,
2021 determination.

                                              8
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tayseer Albeetar,                     :
                    Petitioner        :
                                      :
            v.                        :
                                      :
Unemployment Compensation             :
Board of Review,                      :   No. 1278 C.D. 2022
                 Respondent           :

                                 ORDER

            AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2023, the appeal of Tayseer
Albeetar from the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated
June 24, 2022 at Docket No. 2021002964-BR is QUASHED.

                                    __________________________________
                                    CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge