Douglas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
151 A.3d 1188
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Claimant (pro se) applied for unemployment benefits after termination; Service Center issued a Notice of Determination denying benefits and showing a “mailed on” date of February 3, 2016 and a 15‑day appeal deadline of February 18, 2016.
- Claimant did not file an appeal until February 22, 2016; Referee held a hearing solely on timeliness on March 23, 2016.
- At the hearing Claimant testified she did not receive the Notice and said a Service Center representative told her there had been a fire at the Lansdowne–Lancaster office; she later said she received some notice about a week after her February 22 call.
- Referee credited documentary evidence (the Notice showing the mailed date), found mail not returned and Claimant not having mail problems, rejected Claimant’s testimony as not credible, applied the mailbox rule, and dismissed the appeal as untimely.
- The Board affirmed, adopting the Referee’s findings; Claimant appealed to this Court arguing insufficient proof of mailing and that she rebutted the presumption of receipt.
- The Majority vacated and remanded, holding that the record lacked independent proof the Notice was actually mailed (so the mailbox presumption of receipt could not be applied), and directed the Referee to take testimony from a Service Center representative about mailing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Notice was mailed and thus whether the mailbox presumption of receipt applies | Douglas: she did not receive the Notice and the Service Center may not have mailed it (referenced an office fire) | Board/Referee: Notice shows a mailed date; it was not returned and business records suffice to invoke the presumption | Court: Remand — the mailed‑date on the Notice alone is insufficient when mailing is disputed; need evidence (e.g., Service Center testimony) to invoke presumption of mailing and then receipt |
| Whether Claimant rebutted the presumption of receipt | Douglas: non‑receipt testimony and call reporting a possible office fire rebut presumption | Board/Referee: documentary mailed date and lack of returned mail, plus husband received his notice at same address, rebut Claimant’s claim | Court: Because presumption of mailing was not established, presumption of receipt was inapplicable; remand required to develop record on mailing |
| Whether Referee had jurisdiction to consider merits after untimely appeal | Douglas: sought review but argued timeliness issue should be resolved in light of non‑mailing assertion | Board/Referee: law is mandatory; untimely appeal deprives Referee of jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdictional dismissal premature without resolving whether mailing occurred; remand for fact‑finding on mailing |
| Whether the Board’s decision is reviewable for substantial evidence | Douglas: findings lack substantial evidence on mailing and credibility | Board: findings supported by Notice and other circumstantial evidence | Court: Court cannot meaningfully review because record lacks development on mailing; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Dull v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 955 A.2d 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (describing common‑law mailbox rule presuming receipt of mailed notices)
- Volk v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 49 A.3d 38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (explaining that sender must first prove mailing before presumption of receipt shifts burden to addressee)
- Blast Intermediate Unit #17 v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 645 A.2d 447 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (recognizing separable presumptions: regularity of public officials’ acts and presumption of receipt; mailing must be proven before receipt presumption applies)
- Gaskins v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 429 A.2d 138 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (applies mailbox rule where notice was proven mailed and not returned)