Williams
v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – November 10, 2015 – unreported memorandum opinion*
Claimant
admittedly filed false claims for benefits, but later herself brought that
matter to the Department’s attention.
Claimant’s admission of
wrongdoing does not excuse a fault overpayment
The fact
that Claimant brought the improper benefits to the Department’s attention after
the fact on her own initiative, however, does not alter the fact that the
overpayment was obtained by misrepresentation and is not a ground for reversing
a fault overpayment. McKean v. UCBR, 94 A.3d 1110, 1114-15 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2014) (upholding fault overpayment despite fact that claimant notified
Department of unreported income one month after the last overpayment).
15% penalty v. penalty weeks
In
addition to fault overpayment, under Section 801 of the Law, a claimant who
“makes a false statement knowing it to be false, or knowingly fails to disclose
a material fact to obtain or increase compensation” is subject to penalty weeks
disqualifying her from receiving future benefits and a penalty of 15% of the
overpaid benefits that she received. 43 P.S. § 871(b),(c);4 Chishko, 934
A.2d at 178.
The
Board’s findings that Claimant’s conduct constituted knowing misrepresentation
and that it was done to obtain benefits that she was not eligible to receive
and that she obtained the benefits by fraud satisfy the requirements for
imposition of these penalties. Castello, 86 A.3d at 299; Chishko,
934 A.2d at 178. The Board therefore did
not err in affirming the 15% penalty imposed by the Department. Section 801(c)
provides that the 15% penalty is mandatory where the Board has found that a
claimant knowingly made a false representation concerning her eligibility or
knowingly failed to disclose such information to obtain benefits. 43 P.S. §
871(c) (“Whoever makes a false statement knowing it to be false, or knowingly
fails to disclose a material fact to obtain or increase compensation … and as a
result receives compensation to which he is not entitled shall be liable to pay
to the Unemployment Compensation Fund a sum equal to fifteen per centum (15%)
of the amount of the compensation”)
Penalty
weeks, however, are not automatic upon a finding of conduct sufficient to
support a penalty. Section 801(b) provides that a claimant who has made knowing
misrepresentations or omissions to obtain benefits “may be disqualified
in addition to such week or weeks of improper payments for a penalty period of two
weeks and for not more than one additional week for each such week of improper
payment.” 43 P.S. § 871(b). (emphasis
added) Here, the Board found that Claimant reported the fraudulent claims to
the Department in 2011, and Department records showed that Claimant expressed a
willingness to repay the benefits in 2011, but was told to await an overpayment
letter that the Department did not send.
While self-reporting does not preclude the
imposition of penalty weeks, McKean, 94 A.3d at 1114-15, these facts are
relevant to the seriousness of Claimant’s misconduct and therefore can bear on
the discretionary determination as to whether penalty weeks are appropriate and whether the
number of penalty weeks imposed should be less than maximum permitted by
Section 801(b). [emphasis added]
The Department imposed and the Board upheld the maximum
number of penalty weeks permitted for this 11-week overpayment, 13 penalty
weeks, with no consideration of the unusual mitigating circumstances in
this case. The only reason given by the Department for its imposition of the
maximum penalty weeks was that Claimant knew that she was ineligible when she
filed for benefits and was therefore subject to penalty weeks. The referee and the Board held only that
“penalty weeks” were “appropriate,” and did not discuss their finding that
Claimant reported the fraud to the Department in 2011 or rule on the issue
whether imposition of the maximum penalty weeks was appropriate.
Because the Board did not consider relevant facts established
by both its findings and the record, and did not address the issue of whether
the maximum penalty weeks were properly imposed, the Board’s affirmance of the
imposition of 13 penalty weeks must be vacated and the issue of penalty weeks
must be remanded to the Board. See Dorn v. UCBR, 866 A.2d 497, 501-02
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (remand required where Board failed to make necessary findings
or failed to address evidence); Kowal v. UCBR, 465 A.2d 1322, 1323 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1983) (remand required where Board failed to address issue and make
necessary findings).
The court thus affirmed the Board’s order on ineligibility,
the fault overpayment and the imposition of a 15% penalty, but remanded the
issue of penalty weeks to the Board to consider whether and how many penalty
weeks are appropriate.
-----------------------------
*An unreported
case may not be cited “binding precedent” but can be cited “for its persuasive
value. . . .” See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414 (a); Pa.
R.A.P. 3716 [45 Pa.B. 3975; July 25, 2015]
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)
