Constantini v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
173 A.3d 838
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Claimant Kathleen Constantini voluntarily quit her job and was denied unemployment benefits by a Notice of Determination mailed in early June 2016.
- The Notice listed June 20, 2016 as the last day to appeal; Claimant received the notice June 8 but did not read it closely and did not file an appeal until June 28, 2016.
- A Referee dismissed the untimely appeal; the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirmed, finding Claimant’s delay was due to her negligence rather than a breakdown in the administrative process.
- Claimant argued she was misinformed by Department representatives (June 1 and June 23 calls), that recordings would show misleading instructions, and that mailing date errors contributed to the delay.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether the Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the late appeal warranted nunc pro tunc relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / nunc pro tunc relief | Claimant: late filing caused by misinformation from Department reps, mailing errors, and personal hardships; thus extraordinary circumstances or breakdown in process justify nunc pro tunc relief | Board: claimant’s failure to read the notice and reliance on her own misunderstanding show negligence, not a breakdown; statutory 15-day limit is mandatory | Appeal untimely; no nunc pro tunc relief because delay was attributable to Claimant’s negligence |
| Sufficiency of Board's factual findings / recorded calls | Claimant: Board failed to review or make findings about recorded phone calls that would show misleading instructions; findings incomplete | Board: record contained Claimant’s testimony supporting findings; Claimant failed to subpoena or raise recordings below, so issue waived | Findings supported by record; Claimant waived failure-to-review-recordings claim |
| Mailing date discrepancy | Claimant: envelope postmark and receipt dates show later mailing; earlier decision misstates mailing date, which shifted deadline | Board: even using the later mailing date (adjusted deadline), Claimant still read notice after the adjusted deadline and waited too long | Mailing-date discrepancy did not excuse lateness; appeal still untimely |
| Duty of Referee to assist pro se claimant | Claimant: Referee did not adequately assist a pro se litigant and thus record was underdeveloped | Board: Referee advised parties, admitted documents, solicited testimony; Claimant did not raise assistance issue before Board | Issue waived for failure to raise below; record was sufficiently developed even if not raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Renda v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 837 A.2d 685 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (fifteen-day appeal period is mandatory and strictly applied)
- Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (nunc pro tunc relief available only for extraordinary circumstances such as fraud or administrative breakdown)
- Wing v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 436 A.2d 179 (Pa. 1981) (issues not raised before Referee and Board are waived on appeal)
- Bennett v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 445 A.2d 258 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (referee must assist pro se claimants to develop facts necessary for decision)