C. Roberto v. UCBR, 1478 C.D. 2022

Background

Carl Roberto (Claimant) was employed by Zoll Manufacturing until January 20, 2021, and went on short-term disability due to back injuries.
He applied for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits on February 10, 2021, indicating on the application he was unable and unavailable to work due to disability.
In July 2021, he was found ineligible for UC benefits under Section 401(d)(1) of the UC Law because he was not able and/or available for work.
Claimant appealed, arguing he was medically eligible after February 7, 2021; a referee rejected this, finding conflicting statements and lack of medical documentation presented at the hearing.
On further appeal, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirmed, finding Claimant did not credibly demonstrate he was able and available for work, especially as the key doctor’s note was not part of the hearing record.
The Commonwealth Court reviewed and affirmed the Board’s decision, holding the evidence supported denial of benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Claimant able and available for work and thus eligible for UC benefits under Section 401(d)(1)?	Roberto argued he was able and available post-disability, having medically recovered and followed instructions to submit documentation.	Board argued Roberto admitted he was unavailable, gave conflicting statements, and failed to timely provide medical proof at hearing.	The presumption of availability was rebutted; Roberto failed to credibly prove availability. Board's denial upheld.
Should the Board have considered post-hearing evidence (doctor’s letter)?	Roberto claimed he uploaded a doctor’s note as instructed by the referee.	Board asserted only evidence presented at the hearing could be considered; the letter was not on record.	Court agreed only evidence in the record at the hearing can be considered. Post-hearing documents were not permitted.
Was there a procedural error in rejecting Roberto’s claim due to confusion over application responses?	Roberto argued he misunderstood form questions and should not be penalized for a potential mistake.	Board countered that Roberto gave no explanation at hearing for the conflicting answers, so reason for confusion was unsubstantiated.	Board’s factual determinations were supported by evidence; no procedural error.
Did the Board apply the correct legal standard in requiring proof of ability and availability for work?	Roberto suggested his consistent claims of availability and alleged submission of medical documentation should suffice.	Board held clear evidence and credibility were required, given the rebutted presumption by Roberto’s application answers.	Court found the Board properly required affirmative, credible evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Procito v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 945 A.2d 261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (identifies standard of review in unemployment compensation appeals)
Rohde v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 28 A.3d 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (explains presumption and burden regarding ability and availability in UC claims)
Molnar v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 397 A.2d 869 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (addresses how evidence of disability rebuts the presumption of availability and shifts burden)
Stage Rd. Poultry Catchers v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus., Off. of Unemployment Comp., Tax Servs., 34 A.3d 876 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (defines "substantial evidence" and court deference to Board’s findings)
Croft v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 662 A.2d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (Board cannot consider post-hearing factual communications)