A.M. Kearsley v. UCBR
294 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Kearsley worked as a special education teacher paid through Kaleidoscope Family Solutions, Inc. (KFS) in 2015–early 2016, then directly by the Therapeutic Center in Feb–Jun 2016; she applied for UC benefits after a June 2016 layoff.
- The Erie UC Center initially found her ineligible in July 2016 after excluding KFS wages; Kearsley timely appealed and submitted pay stubs and a 1099 showing KFS payments.
- A prior August 2015 referee decision (not appealed by KFS) had found Kearsley was not self-employed and that KFS payments were wages, but the Department later treated Kearsley as an independent contractor in its wage investigation.
- At the December 2016 referee hearing, the referee credited Kearsley’s evidence and found she was financially eligible; the Board reversed, relying largely on a small set of pay stubs and discounting the 1099 and Kearsley’s testimony, finding her base-year wages insufficient.
- The certified record was incomplete (missing the September 2016 determination and possibly other submissions); the Department had given confusing/misinformation to Kearsley and mishandled appeals.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated the Board’s order and remanded for further factfinding and development of the record, directing the Board to address overlooked pay stubs, the 1099, Kearsley’s testimony, and to explain credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Kearsley’s Argument | Board/Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove base-year wages for UC eligibility | Pay stubs, 1099, and her sworn testimony establish sufficient wages | Only specific pay stubs constitute competent evidence; 1099 insufficient to prove timing; testimony unreliable | Vacated and remanded — Board failed to justify disregarding 1099/testimony and overlooked pay stubs; further factfinding required |
| Effect of prior August 2015 referee decision that KFS payments were wages | That prior final decision established KFS payments are wages and should have foreclosed recharacterization | Department treated claimant as independent contractor in subsequent investigation | Court noted the August 2015 decision bound KFS; remand directed to clarify Department communications and reconcile prior decision with later treatment |
| Adequacy and completeness of the administrative record | Department lost/failed to include appeal materials and gave misinformation, causing evidentiary gaps | Board relied on the certified record as submitted | Vacated and remanded for development of a complete record (including September determination) because administrative breakdown may have caused evidentiary deficiencies |
| Credibility determinations and consideration of evidence (1099, testimony) | Her uncontradicted testimony and 1099 are competent evidence that the Board must consider and explain any discounting | Board declined to credit 1099 or portions of testimony without explanation | Remand required for explicit credibility findings and to explain why documentary/testimonial evidence was rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Pagliei v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 37 A.3d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (claimant bears burden to prove financial eligibility)
- Procyson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 4 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Chapman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 20 A.3d 603 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (appellate review gives prevailing party benefit of inferences)
- Treon v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 453 A.2d 960 (Pa. 1982) (Board may not capriciously disregard competent evidence)
- Stauffer v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 74 A.3d 398 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Board cannot ignore overwhelming evidence contrary to its conclusion)
- Martyna v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 692 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (revised notices of determination can cause administrative confusion; claimant should not suffer for Department error)
- Dorn v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 866 A.2d 497 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (remand appropriate to allow Board to consider corrected wage information)
- Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 131 A.3d 110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Board must make necessary findings and credibility determinations when rejecting testimony)