Greene v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 157 A.3d 983

Kenneth Greene (Claimant) worked for Mondelez and had a pre-2012 severance agreement; he was laid off and applied for UC benefits in Dec. 2014 and reopened the claim in May 2015.
At a January 2014 employer-arranged town-hall, Department UC representatives told employees generally they could not collect unemployment while receiving severance.
June 23, 2015 service-center notice deducted Claimant’s severance and set weekly benefits to $0; notice included a 15-day appeal deadline which Claimant received but did not meet.
Claimant appealed late (Sept. 25, 2015) after learning his severance agreement predated Jan. 1, 2012 (making severance non-deductible under the statute); referee dismissed as untimely and Board affirmed.
Claimant sought nunc pro tunc relief arguing an administrative breakdown because he relied on the UC representatives’ earlier misinformation; the majority rejected relief, finding the misinformation did not concern the availability, timing, or necessity of an appeal and intervening events weighed against causation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether erroneous pre-determination statements by UC reps can constitute an "administrative breakdown" warranting nunc pro tunc appeal	Greene: UC reps’ authoritative misinformation led him reasonably to believe he could not receive UC while on severance and thus obviated need to appeal	Board: Statements were legal errors about eligibility, not fraud or equivalent; claimant still received written notice of appeal rights and could have timely appealed	Held: No nunc pro tunc relief — misinformation must relate to availability/timing/necessity of an appeal; here it did not and was remote with intervening events mitigating causation

Union Electric Corp. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals & Review of Allegheny County, 746 A.2d 581 (Pa. 2000) (administrative body’s negligent or misleading actions can constitute a breakdown justifying equitable relief where reliance on apparent authority is reasonable)
Stana v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 791 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (misleading statements by UC staff about the need for further action may justify remand for credibility findings and nunc pro tunc relief)
Pickering v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 471 A.2d 182 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (UC misinterpretation of law is legal error, not fraud or its equivalent, and does not automatically excuse failure to timely appeal)
Killian-McCombie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 62 A.3d 498 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (statutory rule that severance deductions apply only to agreements entered into after Jan. 1, 2012)
In re Borough of Riegelsville From the Bucks County Board of Assessment & Revision of Taxes, 979 A.2d 399 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (official assurance about administrative records can create reasonable presumption that no appeal is necessary, supporting nunc pro tunc relief)