A. Ashton v. UCBR, 1890 C.D. 2016

Claimant Abigail Ashton worked as a customer service representative and was on paid medical leave after a 2014 neck injury; Employer told her to return by July 15, 2016.
Claimant provided a doctor’s note excusing her from work until August 12, 2016, but at the August 16, 2016 hearing admitted she had no written release showing she could work or what restrictions applied.
The referee found Claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation under 43 P.S. §802(b) (voluntary quit) and §801(d)(1) (not available for suitable work), and stated Claimant remained ineligible until she provided a physician’s release.
Claimant appealed to the Board and requested reconsideration to submit a physician’s note; she did not attach a contemporaneous release or explain why it was unavailable.
More than six weeks after the hearing Claimant submitted an unsigned, unattributed note (dated Sept. 28, 2016) stating she had recovered sufficiently to return to customer service; the Board denied reconsideration.
Claimant timely appealed only the Board’s denial of reconsideration (her appeal of the merits decision was untimely); the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board abused its discretion by denying reconsideration to admit post‑hearing medical evidence	Ashton argued she should be allowed to supplement the record with additional medical evidence showing she was able and available to work	Board (and Employer) argued Claimant lacked good cause: the evidence was available earlier, Claimant gave no explanation for the delay, and the note was unsigned/unauthenticated	Court held no abuse of discretion: Claimant failed to show good cause or explain delay, so denial of reconsideration affirmed
Whether Claimant preserved an argument on the Board’s discretion	Ashton raised merits arguments about efforts to preserve employment but did not brief abuse of discretion on reconsideration denial	Board noted Claimant did not identify any abuse of discretion in her brief	Court held Claimant waived any distinct appellate argument about reconsideration by failing to brief it, reinforcing affirmance

Ensle v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 740 A.2d 775 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (standard for Board’s reconsideration and good cause review)
Bushofsky v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 626 A.2d 687 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (abuse of discretion defined)
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 630 A.2d 948 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (no good cause where evidence was available at hearing and party gave no reason for delay)
Dep’t of Auditor Gen. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 484 A.2d 829 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (reconsideration properly denied when new evidence was available earlier and no explanation for delay)
Leung on Behalf of House of Lee, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 582 A.2d 719 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (party must show evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence)
Com. v. Spotz, 716 A.2d 580 (Pa. 1998) (issues not addressed in an appellate brief are waived)