Wednesday, September 10, 2008

UC - reconsideration - new evidence - second bite at the apple

Rose v. UCBR - September 9, 2008 - unreported memorandum decision

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/145CD08_9-9-08.pdf

The regulation at 34 Pa. Code §101.1116 provides that an aggrieved party may request the Board to reconsider its decision. The Board’s “decision to grant or deny a request for reconsideration is a matter of administrative discretion, this Court’s scope of review of that decision is limited to determining whether the agency abused its discretion.”

Section 101.111(b) provides that the Board will grant a request for reconsideration for “good cause.” In determining whether “good cause” exists, the agency must consider whether the party requesting reconsideration has identified new circumstances or whether the agency failed to consider relevant law.

An offer to provide additional evidence does not constitute good cause unless it can be shown that this “new” evidence was not available at the time of the Referee’s hearing.

Save exceptional circumstances, this Court simply does not allow a party “the proverbial second bite at the apple.” Primecare Medical, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 760 A.2d 483, 488 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000)

>