Duhigg v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court
– December 13, 2017
order to report
opinion http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/412CD17ORD_3-20-18.pdf?cb=1
Held: Claimant’s appeal
rejected due to untimeliness, resulting from “her own failure to notify the
Department of her changed address” and, hence, her lack of notice of the
determinations.
From the opinion:
Mandatory time-limit on appeal
period
Unless the claimant or last
employer or base-year employer of the claimant files an appeal with the board,
from the determination contained in any notice required to be furnished by the
department under section five hundred and one (a), (c) and (d), within fifteen
calendar days after such notice was delivered to him personally, or was mailed
to his last known post office address, and applies for a hearing, such
determination of the department, with respect to the particular facts set forth
in such notice, shall be final and compensation shall be paid or denied in
accordance therewith. 43 P.S. §821(e).
“This fifteen-day time limit is
mandatory; if an appeal is not timely filed within the specified time period,
the determination becomes final, and the Board does not have the requisite
jurisdiction to consider the matter.” McClean v. UCBR, 908 A.2d 956, 959 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In certain instances, this
limitation can be waived if a claimant “presents adequate excuse for his delay;
however, the claimant carries a heavy burden in such cases and is required to
prove more than mere hardship . . . .” Staten v. UCBR, 488 A.2d 1207, 1209 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1985). If the claimant meets that burden, a nunc pro tunc appeal may be
allowed if there are “extraordinary circumstances involving fraud or some
breakdown in the administrative process caused by the delay in filing.”
McClean, 908 A.2d 959. Our Supreme Court has explained that an administrative
breakdown occurs “where an administrative board or body is negligent, acts
improperly or unintentionally misleads a party.” Union Electric Corp. v. Board
of Property Assessment, 746 A.2d 581, 584 (Pa. 2000).
Presumption of receipt of
notices
“Notices . . . to unemployment
claimants which state the last day to file an appeal therefrom and which are
properly addressed and not returned by the postal authorities are presumed to
be received, and a claimant's appeal which is not filed within fifteen calendar
days after notice of the action was mailed to a claimant's last known address
is not timely filed. Without proof of fraud or its equivalent, there is a
presumption of regularity of the acts of public officials such as unemployment
compensation authorities. Because appeal provisions of [the] Law are mandatory,
claimants carry a heavy burden to justify untimely appeals and, absent proof of
fraud, cannot prevail. Something more than mere hardship is necessary to
justify an extension of time, or its equivalent allowance of the act nunc pro
tunc. Exceptions have been recognized, for example, where the presence of fraud
or its equivalent is shown, or where a person is misled by an authorized
official.” Ferraro v. UCBR, 464 A.2d 697, 698-99 (Pa. Cwmlth. 1983).
Here, the untimeliness of
Claimant’s appeal resulted from her own failure to notify the Department of her
changed address. No evidence of record exists to suggest that Claimant
notified the United States Postal Service of her relocation to take advantage
of its mail forwarding services. The record also fails to reveal any fraud,
misrepresentation, or neglect of the Department. Therefore, the
untimeliness of Claimant’s appeal was not caused by a breakdown of the
administrative process, and nunc pro tunc relief is not appropriate in this
case.
__._,_.___
