A.S. Hyman v. UCBR, 358 C.D. 2016

Claimant Amos S. Hyman worked for Kensington, then accepted assignments through Staffing Plus (the Company) and signed an Independent Contractor Agreement. He filed for unemployment after separating from the Company in June 2015.
The Lancaster Service Center mailed a Notice of Determination denying benefits under Section 402(h) (self-employment) and set July 14, 2015 as the last day to appeal; the notice was mailed to Claimant’s address and was not returned as undeliverable.
Claimant filed an appeal by email on August 21, 2015, asserting he thought one appeal (the Kensington appeal) covered both claims and that he was unfamiliar with procedures; he missed an initial timeliness hearing and later failed to show cause for nonappearance.
The Referee dismissed the late appeal as untimely; the Board affirmed after finding Claimant had received proper notice and lacked proper cause for missing the first hearing, and therefore denied a nunc pro tunc appeal.
Claimant appealed to this Court arguing he reasonably relied on the Kensington hearing and was unaware separate appeals were required; he sought nunc pro tunc relief based on procedural confusion.

Issue	Hyman's Argument	Board/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether a nunc pro tunc appeal should be granted for Claimant’s late appeal	Hyman: He reasonably believed one appeal/hearing covered both employer issues and was unfamiliar with procedures, so late filing is excusable	Board: Notice was mailed to last known address and not returned; Claimant is presumed to have received it and did not show proper cause or extraordinary circumstances	Court: Denied nunc pro tunc relief; affirmed dismissal as untimely
Whether Claimant lacked proper notice or proper cause for missing the first timeliness hearing	Hyman: Did not recall receiving the hearing notice and thought the Kensington hearing would resolve all issues	Board: No evidence the notice was not received; mere failure to recall receipt is insufficient; no administrative breakdown shown	Court: Agreed with Board that Claimant received notice and lacked proper cause

Roman-Hutchinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 972 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (Board lacks jurisdiction if appeal not filed within 15 days after mailing of notice)
ATM Corp. of America v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 892 A.2d 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (presumption of receipt when notice mailed to last known address and not returned)
Mihelic v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 399 A.2d 825 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (same presumption of receipt rule)
Mountain Home Beagle Media v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 955 A.2d 484 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (nunc pro tunc relief requires extraordinary circumstances such as fraud, administrative breakdown, or non‑negligent conduct)
Rock v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 A.3d 646 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (scope of appellate review limited to errors of law, constitutional violations, or lack of substantial evidence)