A. Williams v. UCBR, A. Williams v. UCBR

Background

Antonio Williams (Claimant) received UC benefits from applications filed June 26, 2011 and March 31, 2013. The Department issued nine notices of determination alleging unreported earnings, fault overpayments, penalty weeks, and a 15% penalty.
The notices were mailed in January 2016 and each advised a 15-day deadline to appeal (final appeal dates ranged Jan. 21–25, 2016). None were returned as undeliverable.
Claimant faxed appeal forms on January 28, 2016—7 days late for some notices—and was assigned to a Referee. A hearing occurred Feb. 26, 2016; Claimant admitted he received and read the notices and knew the deadlines. He said he delayed because he was unsure how to proceed and was gathering documents.
The Referee dismissed all three appeals as untimely under Section 501(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, finding no evidence of fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent third‑party causes for delay. The Board affirmed.
Claimant appealed pro se to this Court, arguing the appeals were timely or should be excused nunc pro tunc, and contending the Referee failed to allow him to explain and failed to assist him as an unrepresented litigant (due process claim).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Claimant’s appeals timely under Section 501(e)?	Williams: appeals should be considered timely or excused; he attempted to appeal after contacting the Service Center.	Department/Board: Notices established a 15‑day deadline; Claimant filed after that deadline.	Held: Appeals were untimely; Claimant admitted missing the deadlines.
Should the court allow nunc pro tunc appeals based on Claimant’s reasons for delay?	Williams: delay was due to confusion about the process and efforts to gather documents—justify nunc pro tunc relief.	Department/Board: Claimant’s own uncertainty is insufficient; relief requires fraud, administrative breakdown, or non‑negligent third‑party circumstances.	Held: Denied; claimant’s conduct (uncertainty, failure to act before deadline) does not meet heavy burden for nunc pro tunc relief.
Did the Referee violate due process by failing to permit Claimant to fully explain lateness or assist him as a pro se litigant?	Williams: Referee didn’t give opportunity to explain full circumstances or help him gather/submit documents.	Department/Board: Claimant waived any due process claim by not raising it to the Board; additionally, the Referee adequately assisted and explained rights.	Held: Waived on appeal; alternatively, meritless—Referee sufficiently advised rights, elicited explanations, and need not act as claimant’s advocate.
Are the Board’s factual findings entitled to deference?	Williams: challenges the outcome, but not the Board’s factual findings.	Department/Board: Findings are supported by record and binding absent challenge.	Held: Court defers to unchallenged factual findings; they are binding.

Key Cases Cited

Renda v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 837 A.2d 685 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (15‑day appeal period is mandatory and strictly applied)
Sofronski v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, City of Philadelphia, 695 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (failure to timely appeal is jurisdictional; time cannot be extended as indulgence)
Blast Intermediate Unit #17 v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 645 A.2d 447 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (heavy burden to justify untimely appeal)
Cook v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (nunc pro tunc relief only for fraud, administrative breakdown, or non‑negligent circumstances)
Hessou v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 942 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (same standards for excusing lateness)
Hackler v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 24 A.3d 1112 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (referee must reasonably assist unrepresented claimant in developing necessary facts)
Bennett v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 445 A.2d 258 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (same duty to assist)
McFadden v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 806 A.2d 955 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (referee need not advise on legal theory or become advocate)
Campbell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 694 A.2d 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (unchallenged factual findings are binding on appeal)
Schneider v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 523 A.2d 1202 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (issues not raised to the Board are waived on appeal)