Basnet v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – 10-19-22 – reported, precedential
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1099CD21_10-19-22.pdf?cb=1
Held: Claimant did not sustain her burden of showing non-negligent circumstances for filing late appeal from referee decision, given that she had successfully navigated through the system from the time of the UCSC decision (with the help of a friend) in preparing for the referee hearing.
In Lewis v. UCBR 814 A.2d 829 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), the claimant described the steps she took to ensure that she responded appropriately to the papers she received from the Department, and ultimately appealed four days late. Here, there was no testimony that Claimant took any steps to ensure that she timely understood the Referee’s decision, from which she ultimately appealed 43 days later. This Court cannot conclude that Claimant has met her burden because “the burden of demonstrating the necessity of nunc pro tunc relief is on the party seeking to file the appeal, and the burden is a heavy one[,]” Harris, 247 A.3d at 1229, and where non-negligent circumstances cause the untimeliness of an appeal, the claimant must “show [the] non-negligent conduct beyond [her] control caused the delay[,]” Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198, and “the appeal must be filed within a short period of time after learning of the untimeliness.” Harris, 247 A.3d at 1229 (quoting Cook, 671 A.2d at 1131). “[Claimant’s] failure to take measures to ascertain the contents of the [Referee’s decision] resulted in her delaying [sic] in filing the appeal until [February 12, 2021]. As a result, it was untimely and properly dismissed by the [UCBR].” Guat Gnoh Ho v. UCBR., 525 A.2d 874, 875-76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987);11 see also Dull v. UCBR., 955 A.2d 1077, 1080 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (“[The c]laimant was prevented by her own negligence from filing a timely appeal because she neglected to have someone read her mail. Cook does not compel us to reverse the UCBR’s decision in this case.”).
