Connect America v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – March 19, 2013 –
unpublished
1. Limitation of issues
Pursuant
to 34 Pa. Code §101.87, only an issue properly before the referee shall be
ruled on at the hearing before the referee; it states:
When an
appeal is taken from a decision of the Department, the Department shall be
deemed to have ruled upon all matters and questions pertaining to the claim. In
hearing the appeal the tribunal shall consider the issues expressly ruled upon
in the decision from which the appeal was filed. However, any issue in the case
may, with the approval of the parties, be heard, if the speedy administration
of justice, without prejudice to any party, will be substantially served
thereby.
Id.
(emphasis added). We interpret this provision as requiring that “the evidence
adduced and determination made at the referee’s hearing be limited to the legal
issue ruled on” by the Department. Anthony v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review,
506 A.2d 501, 503 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (quoting Corressel v. Unemployment Comp.
Bd. of Review, 385 A.2d 615, 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978)).
Here,
the Department ruled Claimant was financially eligible for UC benefits.
Employer appealed, raising the sole issue that Claimant was not an employee,
but rather was an independent contractor. The referee informed the parties that
she would receive evidence on that issue, and only that issue.
2. Presumption of
employment-
Employer
bears the heavy burden of overcoming the presumption of employment. Kurbatov v.
Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 29 A.3d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).
