A. Holmes v. UCBR, A. Holmes v. UCBR

Claimant Armella Holmes worked full-time as a team leader for Three Rivers Youth since 2013.
On October 19, 2015, Claimant’s provider restricted her to five hours/week; Employer accommodated the restriction.
Claimant reported working five hours for the week ending October 24, 2015, and for each week from November 7, 2015 through January 30, 2016, and collected $410/week (total benefits $5,740).
Claimant did not inform the Department that the reduced hours were due to a medical restriction.
The Department found Claimant ineligible under sections 401 and 4(u) for most weeks and assessed a fault overpayment; the Referee affirmed.
The Board reversed as to the week ending October 24, 2015 (finding insufficient evidence that she had worked all available hours), affirmed ineligibility for subsequent weeks, and found a fault overpayment of $5,330. Claimant appealed solely contesting the fault classification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant’s failure to tell the Department that her five-hour workweek was a medical maximum constitutes "fault" for overpayment under 43 P.S. §874(a)	Holmes: omission was a non-intentional miscommunication; she notified Employer and, as a layperson, reasonably believed that sufficed; therefore overpayment should be non-fault.	Board: withholding material information about limiting hours made Claimant ineligible; intentional state of mind not required—withholding is sufficient for fault.	Court: Remanded. Fault requires a culpable state of mind (knowing recklessness or gross negligence) per Fugh; Board made no findings on Claimant’s state of mind, so record must be developed and Board must reconsider.

Daniels v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 309 A.2d 738 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (definition of "fault" as blameworthy conduct)
Amspacher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 479 A.2d 688 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (false or untruthful statements to service center can support fault)
Carter v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 442 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (withholding information that surely would have resulted in denial supports fault)
Fugh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 153 A.3d 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (fault requires mens rea—knowing recklessness or gross negligence)
Reading Area Water Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 137 A.3d 658 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (discussion of culpable conduct standard)
Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa.) (negligence alone does not constitute willful misconduct)
Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 700 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (medical restrictions, employer accommodations, and eligibility analysis)