C. Kozicki v. UCBR, 299 A.3d 1055

Kozicki applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) in March 2021; the UC Service Center initially keyed quarterly income as $0 and set a low weekly benefit.
At a June 2021 Referee telephone hearing, the Referee prorated Kozicki’s annual net self-employment income (from tax returns) to compute a $296 weekly PUA benefit; Kozicki appealed to the UCBR, which affirmed.
Kozicki contended her actual highest-quarter net income ($14,743) would produce a higher weekly benefit ($572) and that she had uploaded supporting tax/sales documents to the Department portal before the hearing.
Kozicki testified the portal submissions were not considered at the hearing; the Referee indicated he had "enough information," creating a dispute whether all documents were before the Referee.
The Commonwealth Court held (1) PUA weekly amounts for self-employed claimants must be computed using the claimant’s highest quarterly wages under state law (when proper documents are submitted), not a prorated annual net income; and (2) Kozicki was denied due process because relevant documents she submitted were not considered by the Referee, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The Court denied Kozicki’s request to supplement the certified appellate record because the omitted documents were not part of the record before the Referee or UCBR.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper method to calculate PUA weekly benefit for self-employed claimant	Kozicki: PUA must be computed using highest-quarter net income per state UC law and 20 C.F.R. §625.6 (so her $14,743 high quarter yields higher WBA).	UCBR/Dept.: Referee permissibly prorated annual net income from tax returns; federal law requires using net income reported on tax return; claimant didn’t present high-quarter figure at hearing.	Court: UCBR erred — PUA must be calculated using highest quarterly wages when claimant submits proper documentation; remand for recalculation.
Due process — whether claimant’s submitted documents were considered	Kozicki: She uploaded tax/sales records to the Department portal before the hearing; those records were not transmitted to or considered by the Referee, denying her opportunity to present evidence.	UCBR/Dept.: Decision rests on complete record before the Referee/UCBR; claimant failed to identify missing records or preserve them in the certified record.	Court: Kozicki was denied due process because she was not given an opportunity to have all submitted evidence considered; vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to consider relevant records. Court nonetheless denied Kozicki’s application to supplement the certified record on appeal (records not in the administrative record).

Quigley v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 263 A.3d 574 (Pa. 2021) (administrative due process requires notice of issues and opportunity to offer evidence)
Pa. Bankers Ass'n v. Pa. Dep't of Banking, 956 A.2d 956 (Pa. 2008) (due process in admin proceedings includes right to notice and opportunity to be heard)
Vann v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 494 A.2d 1081 (Pa. 1985) (UCBR procedures must comport with due process guarantees)
DeFelice v. City of Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 782 A.2d 586 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (appellate review limited to facts in the certified record)
Stabler Dev. Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Lower Mt. Bethel Twp., 695 A.2d 882 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (documents not in the certified record may not be considered on appeal)
Salameh v. Spossey, 731 A.2d 649 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (appellant must supply a complete certified record; failure to do so waives issues)
B.K. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 36 A.3d 649 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (procedures for seeking supplementation of the certified record)