Greene v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – March
10, 2017
Claimant denied nunc pro tunc late appeal in spite of the fact that he was
incorrectly advised that he could not collect UC benefits while receiving
severance pay, since there were “no
statements attributable to compensation authorities that address the
availability, timing or need for an appeal.”
The Court held that “not every misstatement by an apparently
authoritative person will justify a nunc pro tunc appeal; rather, the
misinformation must relate to the availability, timing or need for an appeal. “
Dissent
The
question of whether permission to appeal nunc pro tunc should be granted is one
which lies in equity. See Bass v. Bureau of Corrections, 401 A.2d 1133 (Pa.
1979); see also, Schofield v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver
Licensing, 828 A.2d 510, 512 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
This
case involved a simple matter of fairness. There is no question that misleading
information by a governmental entity was provided to Claimant. This
information, at the very least, influenced (if not outright controlled)
Claimant's decision-making process about whether and when to appeal, and
created an impediment to the timely filing of the appeal. Submitting the
equitable question to the standard employed by the Majority places such a noose
around it as to choke it of all sense of fairness.
