DiBello v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 197 A.3d 819

Claimant Shellie M. DiBello worked for Henderson Taylor Consulting (employer) through Dec. 1, 2016 and applied for unemployment benefits beginning Jan. 22, 2017.
On Jan. 25, 2017 the UC Service Center mailed a Notice of Financial Determination awarding Claimant 18 weeks of full benefits and stating Feb. 9, 2017 as the last day to appeal.
Claimant believed she was entitled to 26 (or 27) weeks because employer initially reported different payroll data; employer later acknowledged and corrected its submission.
Claimant did not appeal within 15 days; she filed an appeal on April 13, 2017 after discovering the employer’s correction.
A referee dismissed the appeal as untimely under Section 501(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law; the Board affirmed, finding Claimant negligently failed to read the notice and that employer error did not constitute an administrative breakdown.
This Court affirmed the Board, holding Claimant’s late appeal was due to her negligence (misreading the notice) and not excused by fraud, administrative breakdown, or non‑negligent conduct; a concurring/dissent argued for nunc pro tunc relief and remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal / Section 501(e)	DiBello: appeal was effectively timely because employer error caused the wrong notice and she was directed to appeal after correction	Board/Emp.: appeal deadline was Feb. 9; appeal filed Apr. 13 is untimely and Section 501(e) bars jurisdiction	Appeal untimely; dismissal affirmed (15‑day rule strictly applied)
Nunc pro tunc relief	DiBello: extraordinary relief warranted due to employer’s error and administrative confusion; she acted promptly once she learned	Board/Emp.: no extraordinary circumstances; claimant’s negligence not excused	Nunc pro tunc relief denied; claimant’s negligence not an extraordinary circumstance
Administrative breakdown doctrine	DiBello: employer error and confusing Service Center guidance caused a breakdown in the process	Board/Emp.: administrative breakdown requires negligent or misleading conduct by administrative authorities, not private employers	Employer’s error is a factual/legal error, not an administrative breakdown; doctrine not met
Department’s ability to revise financial determination	DiBello: Department can and should correct the financial determination to reflect employer’s corrected data; remedy exists other than appeal	Board/Emp.: remedy is timely appeal; misreporting by employer does not itself extend appeal period	Court did not reach a remedy revision; affirmed that timely appeal was required and claimant failed to pursue it

Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 942 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (untimely appeal deprives Board of jurisdiction)
United States Postal Service v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 620 A.2d 572 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (failure to file within 15 days mandates dismissal absent adequate excuse)
Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa.) (nunc pro tunc relief available for fraud, administrative breakdown, or non‑negligent third‑party conduct)
Union Electric Corp. v. Board of Property Assessment, 746 A.2d 581 (Pa.) (administrative breakdown occurs when an administrative body negligently or improperly misleads a party)
Pickering v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 471 A.2d 182 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (relief extended only where compensation authorities engaged in wrongful or negligent conduct)
Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (misreading a determination is negligence and does not justify excused noncompliance)
Garza v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 669 A.2d 445 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Department’s inherent authority to issue revised determinations in certain circumstances)
Narducci v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 183 A.3d 488 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (distinguishing financial determinations from merits determinations and addressing revision authority)
Ruffner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 172 A.3d 91 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (examples of post‑payment eligibility reversals)