Harris v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – March 17, 2021 – precedential – reported decision
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/401CD20_3-30-21.pdf?cb=2
Held: UCBR erred in finding claimant was guilty of a fault overpayment, since the Board did not make any finding about the claimant’s state of mind and did not establish gross negligence on the part of claimant.
Fault - Section 804(a) of the Law provides that “[a]ny person who by reason of his fault has received any sum as compensation under this act to which he was not entitled, shall be liable to repay . . . a sum equal to the amount so received by him and interest.” Under Section 804(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 874(b), where the compensation is issued or received due to no fault of the claimant, recoupment of funds is deducted from future compensation, if any, as opposed to imposing a fault overpayment.
The word “fault” in Section 804(a) means “an act to which blame, censure, impropriety, shortcoming, or culpability attaches.” Fugh v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 153 A.3d 1169, 1174 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (quoting Daniels v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 309 A.2d 738, 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973)). Negligence alone is not sufficient to establish fault. Id. at 1176-77. Rather, fault is demonstrated by a showing of knowing recklessness or gross negligence. Id. at 1176. The Board or Referee must make findings concerning an actor’s state of mind in order to establish fault. Castello v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 86 A.3d 294, 298 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). [emphasis added] An actor’s intent may be ascertained through circumstantial evidence, however. See Cochran v. Cmwlth., 450 A.2d 756, 759 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
Gross negligence - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently defined the concept of gross negligence in Feleccia v. Lackawanna College, 215 A.3d 3 (Pa. 2019). The Feleccia Court explained, “gross negligence involves more than a simple breach of the standard of care (which would establish ordinary negligence), and instead describes a ‘flagrant’ or ‘gross deviation’ from that standard.” Id. at 21. Importantly, however, the Court noted that “gross negligence does not rise to the level of the intentional indifference or ‘conscious disregard’ of risks that defines recklessness, but it is defined as an ‘extreme departure’ from the standard of care, beyond that required to establish ordinary negligence, and is the failure to exercise even ‘scant care.’” Id. at 20.
Gross negligence is not established where the claimant shared his PIN # with his daughter two years before he was mailed UC Handbook did not alone established gross negligence. Claimant had no reason to think to rescind his information from his daughter, even if he looked at the UC Handbook and saw the warning. Claimant did not learn of the daughter’s fraud until 2016 or 2017, at which time he participated in several investigations against her. The Board makes a significant leap from the mailing of the UC Handbook to gross negligence without showing exactly how Claimant’s deviation from the standard of care was gross.
Under the Board’s interpretation, every claimant who receives a UC Handbook in the mail commits gross negligence if they violate its terms. This absurd result reveals the difficulty in squaring the Board’s argument with the present facts. Accordingly, while we held in the substantial evidence section that the lack of testimony concerning the UC Handbook and Claimant’s awareness did not preclude the Board’s findings of fact, we conclude it is fatal to the Board’s showing of gross negligence. The fact that Claimant should have been aware of the UC Handbook’s restrictions does not, without more, necessarily constitute gross negligence. As a result, we conclude the Board erred as a matter of law in determining Claimant’s actions constituted gross negligence and in imposing a fault overpayment.
+++++++++++++++++
This case is also reported in the PLAN Legal Update http://planupdate.blogspot.com/ , which is searchable and can be accessed without a password.
