Castello v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 545
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Claimant Jeffrey T. Castello filed for Pennsylvania UC benefits effective May 2011 and received regular UC and Emergency UC (EUC) payments for multiple weeks in late 2011–early 2012.
- For weeks ending Sept. 24–Oct. 29, 2011, Claimant reported $0.00 in earnings and received $3,384.00 in Pennsylvania UC benefits, while payroll records showed he earned $10,940.55 from Day & Zimmerman during those weeks.
- For weeks ending Dec. 24, 2011–Mar. 24, 2012, Claimant received $8,092.00 in Pennsylvania EUC benefits; however, an earlier Ohio claim (May 2010) left $2,280.00 in remaining Ohio EUC eligibility.
- A UC Service Center denied the regular UC weeks, assessed a fault overpayment ($3,384) and an eight-week penalty, denied Pennsylvania EUC weeks based on remaining Ohio entitlement, and assessed a non-fraud EUC overpayment ($8,092).
- Claimant did not appear at the Referee hearing; the Referee admitted the claim file and took judicial notice of how the state PAT/online system records claimant-reported earnings (i.e., $0.00 indicates the claimant reported no work).
- The Referee and Board found Claimant intentionally failed to report earnings (fault), imposed repayment and penalty for UC, and found he was ineligible for PA EUC because he had remaining Ohio EUC benefits; Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fault overpayment under §804(a) is supported where claimant reported $0.00 earnings but did not testify | No substantial evidence of claimant’s intent; Referee’s judicial notice substituted facts and violated due process | Claim file showing zero reported income plus judicially noticed reporting mechanics supports inference of intentional nonreporting | Court upheld fault overpayment: claim file plus judicial notice provided substantial evidence of intentional failure to report earnings |
| Whether taking judicial notice of the Department’s claim-reporting procedures violated due process | Judicial notice improperly supplied factual proof without testimony | Judicial notice of well-known agency procedures is permissible and does not deny due process | Court held judicial notice of claim-reporting mechanics was proper and did not violate due process |
| Whether PA could deny EUC because claimant had remaining Ohio benefits (multiple benefit years) | Claimant contends Ohio entitlement was to EUC, not regular UC, and PA overpaid | USDOL guidance and prior exhaustion rules require remaining benefits on prior claim (including EUC) be exhausted first | Court held claimant had to exhaust remaining Ohio EUC before PA EUC; PA denial and non-fraud overpayment affirmed |
| Whether PA non-fraud EUC overpayment was erroneous due to classification of Ohio entitlement | Claimant argued entitlement type (UC vs EUC) changes result | Board relied on USDOL UIPL guidance on ordering benefits across benefit years and states | Court affirmed non-fraud overpayment because remaining Ohio benefits precluded PA EUC payments |
Key Cases Cited
- Amspacher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 479 A.2d 688 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (defines “fault” for §804(a) and explains claimant duty to disclose employment)
- Greenawalt v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 543 A.2d 209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (intentional misleading supports fault overpayment)
- Matvey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 531 A.2d 840 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (false statements on benefits applications can establish fault)
- Seibert v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 403 A.2d 1369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (judicial notice of Bureau procedures regarding claim records is permissible)
- Gleeson v. State Board of Medicine, 900 A.2d 430 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (agency may take official notice of matters courts would notice without violating due process)
- Sweeney v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 74 A.3d 1175 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (USDOL guidance controls ordering of EUC payments across benefit years)
- B.K. v. Department of Public Welfare, 36 A.3d 649 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (appellate review limited to certified record)