Court held
that claimant was entitled to late appeal, nunc pro tunc, in overpayment case, because
of
- UCSC failure
to follow Referee’s remand instructions, issuing new determinations rather than
investigating claimant’s allegations that her niece had hacked her UC account
and that no UC payments had been deposited into claimant’s bank account
- confusion
caused multiple (10) determinations - By making new decisions, on remand, under
brand new docket numbers, the Service Center created sufficient confusion to
constitute a breakdown in the administrative system. Indeed, the very number of
decisions that were flying about created confusion and a consequent breakdown
in the administrative system.
The court also
found that the failure of Counsel’s secretary to log the appeal deadlines was
not dispositive. “[I]t was the
breakdown in the administrative process that brought Claimant back for a second
round of proceedings. “[H]ad the unemployment authorities conducted an
investigation … on the issue of whether or not any type of identity theft,
fraud by a third party, had occurred, [Claimant] probably wouldn’t have these
cases filed.” . . . .Counsel took action to get the appeals filed as soon as he
learned of his secretary’s error, and
there is no evidence to indicate that the lateness of Claimant’s appeals
prejudiced the Department.”
=============================
*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)
