B.A. Hickey v. UCBR, B.A. Hickey v. UCBR

Claimant Barbara A. Hickey filed an untimely appeal from a Department of Labor and Industry Notice of Determination dated April 27, 2016, which disqualified her from unemployment compensation benefits.
The Determination was mailed to Claimant’s last known address and was not returned as undeliverable; the 15-day appeal deadline was May 12, 2016.
Claimant did not file an appeal until June 17, 2016; she testified she never received the April 27 Determination and first learned of an adverse action when she received an overpayment notice on June 16, 2016.
A referee limited the hearing to the timeliness issue, heard testimony from the Department’s claims examiner and Claimant, and found the Determination was mailed to Claimant’s correct address and Claimant was not misled about appeal rights.
The Board adopted the referee’s findings, rejected Claimant’s non-receipt testimony as not credible, denied a remand, and dismissed the appeal as untimely under 43 P.S. §821(e).
On appeal to this Court, Claimant focused on the merits but did not contest the Board’s factual findings; the Court affirmed the Board, applying the mailbox presumption and the heavy burden for nunc pro tunc relief.

Issue	Hickey's Argument	Board/Department's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant’s appeal was timely under 43 P.S. §821(e)	Hickey contends she did not receive the April 27 Determination and thus could not timely appeal; she appealed promptly after learning of the overpayment	The Department maintained the Determination was mailed to Claimant’s last known address, not returned, and therefore the appeal deadline ran	Appeal was untimely; dismissal affirmed because the Board credited mailing evidence and rejected Claimant’s non-receipt testimony
Whether Claimant overcame the 15-day jurisdictional deadline by proving non-receipt, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent circumstances	Hickey offered her testimony of non-receipt as the basis to allow an untimely appeal nunc pro tunc	The Board argued Claimant failed to meet the heavy burden; presumption of receipt under mailbox rule was unrebutted	Claimant failed to rebut mailbox presumption and did not prove administrative breakdown or excusable delay; untimely appeal cannot be considered

Gannett Satellite Info. Sys., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 661 A.2d 502 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (15‑day appeal requirement is jurisdictional)
Russo v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 13 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (time for appeal cannot be extended as grace)
Hessou v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 942 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (standards for considering untimely appeals)
Cook v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (administrative breakdown and non‑negligent delay grounds for nunc pro tunc relief)
United States Postal Serv. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 620 A.2d 572 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (failure to appeal without adequate excuse mandates dismissal)
Douglas v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 151 A.3d 1188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (distinguishing circumstances where claimant both denies receipt and contests that notice was mailed)