Cooper v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court -
Sept. 7, 2012 - unpublished memorandum opinion
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2118CD11_9-7-12.pdf
Lack of findings
Unfortunately, our ability to
perform effective appellate review of whether Claimant is self-employed and
ineligible for benefits pursuant to Sections 402(h) and 4(l)(2)(B) is
hindered by the lack of factual findings made by the Board in this matter. Although
it found that Claimant was free from the direction and control of ECI and
Hilton, the Board issued no findings of fact regarding the individual factors
necessary for making that determination. Additionally, the Board made no
findings of fact regarding whether Claimant was customarily engaged in an
independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. In fact,
the Board did not address the second prong of Section 4(l)(2)(B) in
determining that Claimant was ineligible for benefits as an independent
contractor. Thus, we must remand this matter to the Board.
Each prong has a number of factors that will be considered to determine whether a claimant is self-employed. See, e.g., Tracy v. UCBR, 23 A.3d 612, 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) , , , ,"No single factor is controlling . . . and, therefore, the ultimate conclusion must be based on the totality of the circumstances." Resource Staffing, Inc. v. UCBR, 961 A.2d 261, 264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Furthermore, we recently have held that "the fact that an unemployed person agrees to accept, and thereafter does accept, an occasional offer of work is simply not enough to demonstrate that said individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business." Silver v. UCBR, 34 A.3d 893, 898 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). . .. Minelli v. UCBR, 39 A.3d 593, 597-98 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
Adequate notice of the issues - We have held that the Board’s regulations, including 34 Pa. Code § 101.107 (what issues can be considered on appeal) "are designed to prevent surprise to claimants." Sharp Equipment Co., 808 A.2d at 1026. Moreover, the Board may only consider what was "delineated in the Bureau’s determination notice. To allow a critique of other conduct against which charge the employee is unprepared to defend or explain is fundamentally unfair and, absent mutual consent of its consideration, is prohibited." Hanover Concrete Co. v. UCBR, 402 A.2d 720, 721 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Thus, "where an applicant has been found ineligible for benefits, this Court will limit the hearing to the reason stated in the Bureau’s determination." Sharp Equipment Co., 808 A.2d at 1026 (second emphasis added).
We do not agree that a party’s due process rights of notice, an opportunity to be heard, and to defend are satisfied when, although a party is provided a general statement as to the section of the Law at issue, the Board bases its determination of ineligibility on a new legal theory that had not been raised or addressed in the prior proceedings or, most importantly, during the Referee’s hearing at which a party is supposed to have an opportunity to present evidence in support of his or her eligibility
While the overall legal issue has been whether Claimant was engaged in self-employment, the legal basis for that determination has differed at each stage of the proceedings in this matter. A remand is also required for these reasons.
________________
The opinion,
though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as
binding precedent." 210
Pa. Code § 67.55. Citing
Judicial Opinions.
