F. Brown v. UCBR
9 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Claimant Faye Brown worked for Fiserv from 1976 until March 1, 2016 and filed for unemployment benefits on March 6, 2016 citing a layoff.
- The Service Center denied benefits on July 11, 2016; the final date to appeal that determination was July 26, 2016.
- Brown filed her first appeal late (July 28, 2016); a Referee dismissed that appeal as untimely on August 23, 2016 and set a final appeal date of September 7, 2016.
- Brown filed a second appeal to the Board on September 27, 2016; the Board dismissed it as untimely under Section 502 (appeal period 15 days).
- Brown sought nunc pro tunc relief, explaining severe family health crises (mother’s massive stroke in August 2016 and her adult son’s acute mental-health problems) caused the delay.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated the Board’s order and remanded for the Board to reconsider whether these non-negligent circumstances justify nunc pro tunc relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether untimely appeal may be excused nunc pro tunc due to non-negligent circumstances | Brown: family medical crises (mother’s stroke; son’s mental illness) made timely filing impossible | Board: claimant bears heavy burden; third-party medical issues and lack of evidence of impact do not excuse a 20-day delay | Court: vacated and remanded; Board’s finding that these were merely "normal strains" lacked substantial evidence and Board must reassess whether nunc pro tunc relief is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- DiIenno v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 429 A.2d 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (timely appeal is jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Das v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 399 A.2d 816 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (statutory time limits mandatory absent fraud or agency misconduct)
- Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (nunc pro tunc relief when untimeliness due to non-negligent circumstances and short delay without prejudice)
- Stanton v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 623 A.2d 925 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (appellant must act with reasonable diligence once aware of need to appeal)
- Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 942 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (lack of familiarity with procedures does not excuse untimely filing)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (equitable nunc pro tunc relief available in extraordinary circumstances)
- Bass v. Commonwealth, 401 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 1979) (illness of claimant or counsel can justify nunc pro tunc relief)