Court Opinion

ID: 9946791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 15:21:44.743813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:43.419953
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mercady Hazlett,                             :
                        Petitioner           :
                                             :
                v.                           :      No. 1465 C.D. 2022
                                             :      Submitted: December 4, 2023
Unemployment Compensation                    :
Board of Review,                             :
                 Respondent                  :

BEFORE:         HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
                HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
                HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT                                     FILED: March 1, 2024

                Mercady Hazlett (Claimant), pro se, has petitioned this Court to review
an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board)
affirming the Referee’s decision that dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely under
Section 501(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 After review, we
affirm.
                In March 2020, Claimant applied for and received unemployment
compensation benefits until May 2020. On April 16, 2021, the Department of Labor
and Industry (Department), through its Unemployment Compensation Service
Center, issued a notice of determination to Claimant that she was not entitled to the
benefits she received in 2020. This made her liable for a non-fault overpayment of

1
    Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §821(e).
benefits.2 The last day to appeal this determination was May 5, 2021. Claimant
appealed on September 14, 2021, and she explained as follows:
                I do apologize for this late appeal. I did not receive this appeal
               until the end of May due to moving in with my mother. The
               appeal was sent to my previous address. Also I called UC
               benefits and waited to hearing [sic] from them about my appeal
               since it was late. I have received an email explanation about my
               appeal and they told me I could file a late appeal and explain
               why.

Certified Record at 17 (C.R. ____).
               The Referee held a telephonic hearing on November 2, 2021, and
Claimant testified as follows. She filed for unemployment benefits in March 2020
after being laid off by her employer, Cracker Barrel, due to COVID-19. Her benefits
ended in May of 2020. In January 2021, Claimant moved to her mother’s house and
contacted the postal service to forward her mail. Claimant did not contact the
Department about the address change for the reason that she was no longer collecting
unemployment benefits. By the time Claimant received the Service Center’s April
16, 2021, notice of determination, the appeal deadline had passed. She contacted
the Department several times to inquire about the appeal process and received no
response until September 2021, when the Department staff told her that she could
just “tell [the Referee] that it was late” and explain her reasons. Notes of Testimony

2
  The recoupment of non-fault overpayments of unemployment compensation benefits is provided
in Section 804(b)(1) of the Law, which 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 with respect to such benefit year, or
        the three-year period immediately following such benefit year, in accordance with
        the provisions of this paragraph.
43 P.S. §874(b)(1).

                                                2
(N.T.) at 8; C.R. 51. Claimant acknowledged receiving an appeal instruction
attached to the Service Center’s determination, but, nevertheless, she “wanted to talk
to Unemployment . . . to walk through this, because [she was] so new to this[.]” N.T.
at 8; C.R. 51.
              The Referee dismissed Claimant’s appeal because it was filed beyond
the 15-day time period set forth in Section 501(e) of the Law.3 The Referee noted
that to have jurisdiction to consider an appeal filed after the 15-day appeal period, a
claimant must show either fraud or a breakdown in the administrative process which
caused the late appeal. Claimant presented no evidence that she was misinformed
or misled regarding her right to appeal; thus, the Referee lacked jurisdiction to
consider Claimant’s appeal. The Board adopted and incorporated the Referee’s
findings and conclusions and affirmed the Referee’s decision. Claimant petitioned
for this Court’s review.4
              On appeal, Claimant argues that her appeal should be deemed as timely
filed because she arranged for the postal service to forward her mail when she moved
in with her mother.        Claimant did not believe that she needed to notify the
Department about her address change because she had not received benefits from
the Department in over six months. When she received the Service Center’s April
16, 2021, notice of determination, she contacted the Department but received no

3
  In Section 3 of the Act of June 30, 2021, P.L. 173, the General Assembly extended the appeal
deadline in Section 501(e) of the Law from 15 days to 21 days, which applies to notices of
determination issued after July 24, 2021. Here, the Department’s notice of determination was
issued before July 24, 2021, and thus the 15-day appeal period still applied.
4
  The Court’s review determines whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was
committed, a practice or procedure of the Board was not followed, or the findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 913 A.2d 331, 334 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).

                                               3
response until September 2021, when the staff told her she could still file her appeal
and explain her reasons for the delay.
             At the time Claimant received the Department’s notice, Section 501(e)
of the Law provided:
             Unless the claimant or last employer or base-year employer of
             the claimant files an appeal with the board, from the
             determination contained in any notice required to be furnished
             by the department under section five hundred and one (a), (c) and
             (d), within fifteen calendar days after such notice was delivered
             to him personally, or was mailed to his last known post office
             address, and applies for a hearing, such determination of the
             department, with respect to the particular facts set forth in such
             notice, shall be final and compensation shall be paid or denied in
             accordance therewith.

Former 43 P.S. §821(e).
             A claimant’s failure to timely appeal within the deadline is a
jurisdictional defect, which this Court may not overlook or disregard. Shea v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 898 A.2d 31, 33 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)
(quoting Dumberth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 837 A.2d
678, 681 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)). The appeal deadline cannot be extended as a matter
of grace or indulgence. Id. To justify an untimely appeal and obtain nunc pro tunc
relief, a claimant bears a heavy burden of demonstrating extraordinary
circumstances involving (1) fraud or a breakdown in the administrative authority’s
operation; (2) non-negligent conduct of an attorney or her staff; or (3) non-negligent
conduct of the claimant that was beyond her control. Hessou v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 942 A.2d 194, 198 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Simply
stating that a notice was not received is not sufficient for nunc pro tunc relief. See
Best Courier v. Department of Labor and Industry, Office of Unemployment
Compensation Tax Services, 220 A.3d 696, 701 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). “Where notice

                                          4
is mailed to a claimant’s last known address and not returned by the postal authorities
as undeliverable, the claimant is presumed to have received it and is barred from
attempting to appeal after the expiration of the appeal period[.]”                     Mihelic v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 399 A.2d 825, 827 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1979).
               Here, Claimant received unemployment benefits between March and
May of 2020. On April 16, 2021, the Department determined that she was not
entitled to the benefits she had received in 2020 and thus was liable for a non-fault
overpayment of unemployment benefits. Claimant did not receive the Service
Center’s determination until after the appeal deadline had passed. Claimant still did
not appeal the determination until four months after receiving the determination.
Claimant did not identify an administrative breakdown to justify her untimely appeal
but simply argued that she “cannot control how mail comes and goes[.]” Claimant
Brief at 8. This does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that would justify
Claimant’s untimely appeal.5 Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198.

5
  The Department’s delay in reviewing an award of unemployment compensation benefits until
after benefits have terminated can, in some instances, warrant nunc pro tunc relief. For example,
in Byrd v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., Nos. 1231, 1232, and
1233 C.D. 2019, filed February 4, 2021) (unreported), this Court held that the claimant was entitled
to nunc pro tunc relief because the Department’s five-year delay in investigating the claimant’s
unemployment compensation benefits constituted an administrative breakdown. In Ruffner v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 172 A.3d 91 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), we held that the
Department’s unexplained delay of 19 months between the claimant’s application for
unemployment benefits and the Department’s determination of ineligibility and a fault
overpayment did not constitute a prompt examination under Section 501(c)(1) of the Law, 43 P.S.
§821(c)(1). Here, Claimant is subject only to a non-fault overpayment of benefits by way of an
offset of a future award of unemployment benefits, should she ever seek them.

                                                 5
            Claimant did not present evidence that would justify a nunc pro tunc
appeal. Accordingly, the Board did not err in dismissing Claimant’s appeal from the
Department’s determination as untimely.

            We therefore affirm the Board’s June 28, 2022, adjudication.

                           ____________________________________________
                           MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

                                          6
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mercady Hazlett,                   :
                   Petitioner      :
                                   :
           v.                      :     No. 1465 C.D. 2022
                                   :
Unemployment Compensation          :
Board of Review,                   :
                 Respondent        :

                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2024, the adjudication of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated June 28, 2022, in the above-
captioned matter, is AFFIRMED.
                           ____________________________________________
                           MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita