UC - late appeal - confusion/breakdown in admin. process

Barrick v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – 2-27-17 – unreported* memorandum opinion

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/189CD16_2-27-17.pdf?cb=1

Court held that claimant was entitled to late appeal, nunc pro tunc, in overpayment case, because of

- UCSC failure to follow Referee’s remand instructions, issuing new determinations rather than investigating claimant’s allegations that her niece had hacked her UC account and that no UC payments had been deposited into claimant’s bank account

- confusion caused multiple (10) determinations - By making new decisions, on remand, under brand new docket numbers, the Service Center created sufficient confusion to constitute a breakdown in the administrative system. Indeed, the very number of decisions that were flying about created confusion and a consequent breakdown in the administrative system.

The court also found that the failure of Counsel’s secretary to log the appeal deadlines was not dispositive.   “[I]t was the breakdown in the administrative process that brought Claimant back for a second round of proceedings. “[H]ad the unemployment authorities conducted an investigation … on the issue of whether or not any type of identity theft, fraud by a third party, had occurred, [Claimant] probably wouldn’t have these cases filed.” . . . .Counsel took action to get the appeals filed as soon as he learned of  his secretary’s error, and there is no evidence to indicate that the lateness of Claimant’s appeals prejudiced the Department.”

=============================

*An unreported Commonwealth Court case may not be cited binding precedent but can be cited for its persuasive value.  See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(b) and Pa. R.A.P.  3716

If the case is old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar)

UC - due process - notice of issues

Dobryk v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – Feb. 1224, 2017 – unreported* memorandum decision

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/364CD16_2-24-17.pdf?cb=1

Held:  Claimant denied due process where notice of determination indicated one critical time period, but another period was subject of the hearing.

Claimant appeared at the hearing with documentary evidence detailing his work injury, medical treatment, and leave of absence during the period of November 20, 2014 through December 1, 2014,  identified in the Notice of Determination as the basis for his ineligibility for unemployment benefits. However, the Referee based the decision on events that allegedly took place on December 2, 2014 through December 8, 2014.

Claimant had no notice that these events could form the basis for denying him unemployment compensation.  Claimant was clearly without notice that he would need to produce witnesses for another time period, given that both Employer and Claimant testified that a coworker was present with Claimant during the events that allegedly took place December 2, 2014 through December 8, 2014 and that he acted as an interpreter for Claimant at work.

Whether or not Claimant would have chosen to call this coworker to offer testimony to dispute Employer’s version of events, due process requires that Claimant must be given the opportunity to do so and to otherwise defend against any allegations that would serve as a basis to deny him unemployment compensation benefits. The lack of proper notice of the grounds for denying him unemployment benefits denied Claimant due process of law. Hanover Concrete Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 402 A.2d 720, 721 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).

In Sterling v. UCBR, 474 A.2d 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984), it was held that a claimant’s right to due process is violated when a referee issues a decision based on facts that were not addressed by the Department’s Notice of Determination and were instead raised for the first time at a hearing before a referee,

It has long been accepted that the constitutional guarantee of due process of law is equally applicable to administrative proceedings as it is to judicial proceedings. Included in this concept of due process is the requirement that such notice must at the very least contain a sufficient listing and explanation of any charges so that the individual can know against what charges he must defend himself if he can. Thus notice is integrally linked to the right to be heard, for without notice, litigants are ill-equipped to assert their rights and defend against claims.

===============================================

*An unreported Commonwealth Court case may not be cited binding precedent but can be cited for its persuasive value.  See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(b) and Pa. R.A.P.  3716

If the case is old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar)

UC - vol. quit - child care issues - on-call job - short advance notice

Vital Support Home Health Care Agency v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – Feb. 24, 2017 – unreported memorandum decision

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/415CD16_2-24-17.pdf?cb=1

Claimant had good cause to quit her job as home health aid where, after her long-time client moved, employer offered her only on-call work with only one-hour advance notice.  Claimant had three young children and needed child care.

The inability to find childcare on short notice, with communication to the employer, may constitute a necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily terminating employment. Truitt v. UCBR, 589 A.2d 208, 210 (Pa. 1991); Blakely v. UCBR, 464 A.2d 695, 696 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). However, generally in order to justify quitting based on lack of childcare, a claimant must establish that he or she exhausted all other alternative childcare arrangements before voluntarily terminating employment. Beachem v. UCBR, 760 A.2d 68, 72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).  Claimant did so in this case

==================

*An unreported Commonwealth Court case may not be cited binding precedent but can be cited for its persuasive value.  See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(b) and Pa. R.A.P.  3716

If the case is old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar)

civil procedure - limited partnership - representation by non-attorney general partner allowed

Jamestown Condominium, v. Sofayov et al. – Cmwlth. Court – unreported memorandum opinion – February 22, 2017

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/2642CD15_2-22-17.pdf?cb=1

Non-attorney general partner of a limited partnership had the right to represent the partnership in court under the rationale set out in In re Lawrence County Tax Claim Bureau, 998 A.2d 675 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), and sec. 2501(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. 2501(a). (In all civil matters before any tribunal every litigant shall have a right to be heard, by himself and his counsel, or by either of them.)

civil procedure - post-trial motions - supporting brief not required - Pa. R.C.P. 227.1(b)(2)

Williston Township v. Main Line Gardens, Inc., et al. – Supreme Court of Pa. – February 22, 2017

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-129A-2016mo%20-%2010300076816126415.pdf?cb=1

Held:  Pa. R.C.P. 227.1(b)(2) concerning preservation of issues for appeal in a motion for post-trial relief does not require the moving party to file a supporting brief.

“Post-trial motions serve an important function in the adjudicatory process because they provide the trial court with an opportunity to correct errors in its ruling and avert the need for appellate review. . . .In 1984, this Court adopted Rules 227.1 through 227.4 to establish uniform procedures for post-trial relief in actions at law and equity, and actions tried with or without a jury. . . .

Rule 227.1 addresses waiver at the trial court level, “as a matter of the trial court’s post-trial power.”  . . .Rule 227.1(b)5 establishes that issues not preserved either before or at trial, see Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(b)(1), or in post-trial motions, see Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(b)(2), are waived. As this Court ruled in Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 710 A.2d 54 (Pa. 1998), Rule 227.1 “requires parties to file post-trial motions in order to preserve issues for appeal,” and “[i]f an issue has not been raised in a post-trial motion, it is waived for appeal purposes.” Id. at 54.

The Commonwealth Court erred in ruling that Main Line waived the issues set forth in its post-trial motions for failing to file briefs in support thereof. Main Line conformed with the dictates of Rule 227.1 to preserve its issues for appeal by filing post-trial trial motions that complied with Rule 227.1(b)(2). Main Line’s post-trial motions set forth the requested grounds for relief and the theories in support thereof. Importantly, Rule 227.1(b)(2) contains no requirement that parties file briefs or present argument with respect to the issues specified in the motion in order to preserve them for appeal.” [emphasis in original].

UC - vol. quit - medical issues - duty to preserve employment

St. Clair Hospital v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – en banc (4-3) – February 2, 2017

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/2607CD15_2-2-17.pdf?cb=1

Held that claimant “did nokt take all reasonable and necessary steps to preserve her employment,” where

- employer game her list of 132 open positions

- employer specified two job from list that CL could do

- CL did not contact ER about the two job or apply for any open position specified by employer.

The two primary cases discussed were

- Genetin v. UCBR – 451 A.2d 1353 (Pa. 1982), and

-  Nolan v. UCBR – 797 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)

The dissents argued that

- the record “lacked sufficient evidence that the employer is able to provide...suitable work”

- the majority opinion ran counter to Genetin – employer did not take steps to provide suitable work once CL told ER of medical issue

-----------------

This case is also reported in the PLAN Legal Update  http://planupdate.blogspot.com/ , which is searchable and can be accessed without a password.

If the case is old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar)