A.M. Kent v. UCBR, A.M. Kent v. UCBR

Claimant A. Marilyn Kent filed for unemployment benefits in August 2014 and received benefits for multiple weeks.
The Department mailed four Notices of Determination in early June 2015 (two on June 4 and two on June 5), showing appeal deadlines of June 19 and June 22, 2015.
Claimant did not file an appeal until June 15, 2016—nearly one year after the deadlines; a referee hearing occurred July 14, 2016.
At the hearing the referee initially misread the timeliness dates, then reopened to address timeliness; Claimant testified she did not receive the notices due to personal hardships and a change of address/limited access to her PO box.
The Board found the notices were mailed to Claimant’s last known address, were not returned as undeliverable, rejected Claimant’s credibility, and dismissed the late appeal under 43 P.S. § 821(e) for lack of jurisdiction.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, applying the mailbox presumption of receipt and declining to consider new evidence presented for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Claimant's Argument	Board/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant’s late appeal should be excused and allowed nunc pro tunc	Kent: Life events (assault, injury, bankruptcy, move) prevented her from receiving notices and justified the delay	Board: Notices were mailed to last known address, not returned undeliverable; claimant’s testimony not credible; no fraud, breakdown, or non‑negligent conduct	Appeal untimely; dismissal affirmed—presumption of receipt applies and Claimant failed to prove extraordinary or non‑negligent circumstances

Suber v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 126 A.3d 410 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (15‑day appeal period is mandatory)
Cook v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (nunc pro tunc relief limited to extraordinary circumstances or non‑negligent conduct)
Bass v. Com., 401 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 1979) (discussion of equitable exceptions for late appeals)
Volk v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 49 A.3d 38 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (evidentiary presumption of receipt when mailed and not returned)
Gaskins v. Com., Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 429 A.2d 138 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (applying common law mailbox rule in UC proceedings)
Douglas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 151 A.3d 1188 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (notice’s internal ‘‘mailed date’’ insufficient alone when claimant contests mailing)
Chapman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 20 A.3d 603 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (credibility determinations are for the Board)
Duquesne Light Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 648 A.2d 1318 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Board credibility findings not subject to judicial review)
Umedman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 52 A.3d 558 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (appellate court will not consider evidence first raised on appeal)
Johns v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 87 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (scope of review for Board decisions)