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)
