Egreczky v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
183 A.3d 1102
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Claimant George E. Egreczky filed for unemployment benefits in July 2014 after job elimination; UC Service Center granted benefits effective July 6, 2014, then reduced them to $0 due to an $89,800 severance deduction.
- Claimant appealed the severance deduction (Referee affirmed in Sept. 2014); in April 2015 he asked to withdraw the July 2014 application and refile with an effective date of December 28, 2014, to avoid the severance deduction.
- The Board initially dismissed his April 2015 filing as untimely, then, after remand, directed the Service Center to treat his April 22, 2015 correspondence as a withdrawal request and consider a December 28, 2014 refile.
- The Service Center cancelled the July 6, 2014 claim but denied backdating to December 28, 2014, concluding Claimant’s hindsight belief about filing later did not constitute a Department error or mistake; it allowed at most a two-week backdate under the regulation.
- Referee and Board denied Claimant’s request to backdate under 34 Pa. Code §65.43a(e), finding no Department error or mistake that misled him; Claimant appealed to this Court, which affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Board/Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s application may be backdated to Dec. 28, 2014 under 34 Pa. Code §65.43a(e) | Egreczky: UC staff misled or failed to inform him he could delay filing; that misinformation is a Department "error or mistake" allowing backdating | Department: Backdating allowed only in limited circumstances; no Department error occurred — Claimant filed and was properly adjudicated; later advice or hindsight is not a Department mistake | Court held no Department error or mistake that would permit backdating beyond the two-week allowance; affirmed denial |
| Whether CareerLink or Department counsel statements created a basis for nunc pro tunc relief | Egreczky: Statements that he should have delayed filing (CareerLink) and guidance from Department counsel misled him | Department: Post‑filing communications after Dec. 2014 cannot retroactively create an error; no guarantees were made | Court held those post‑filing statements do not constitute Department error or excuse late filing |
| Whether the Board’s factual findings are reviewable/adequate | Egreczky: Challenges sufficiency of Board’s consideration and compliance with remand | Board: Findings supported by record; remand was complied with and Service Center considered request | Court: Board is finder of fact; its uncontested factual findings are conclusive and were adequate |
| Whether Claimant’s pro se status excuses unfamiliarity with statutory/regulatory requirements | Egreczky: Implicitly argues lack of legal knowledge should excuse late filing | Department: Pro se status does not relieve burden of proving entitlement; Daly controls | Court: Self‑representation does not excuse failure to meet legal standards; claimant assumed risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 186 A.2d 453 (Pa. Super. 1962) (agency not required to explain all possible legal options to every applicant)
- Daly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 631 A.2d 720 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (pro se litigant bears risk of lack of legal expertise)
- Stana v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 791 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (misleading statements by UC staff may support nunc pro tunc relief if believed by fact‑finder)
- Goppman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 845 A.2d 946 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (Board is ultimate fact‑finder in UC proceedings)
- Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 942 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (unchallenged Board findings of fact are conclusive on review)