Han v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
42 A.3d 1155
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Claimant challenged a June 13, 2011 Board dismissal of his appeal as untimely under 43 P.S. § 822 and 34 Pa.Code §§ 101.61(a), 101.82(b)(5).
- Referee denied unemployment benefits on March 18, 2011; decision mailed to Claimant at last known address with a 15‑day deadline to appeal.
- Claimant’s appeal was filed May 5, 2011, outside the 15‑day period (deadline April 4, 2011).
- Board notified Claimant on May 19, 2011 that the appeal appeared untimely and offered a hearing to show timeliness; Claimant did not request such a hearing.
- Board dismissed the appeal as untimely under § 502 and § 101.61(a).
- Pennsylvania courts defer to the referee’s decision as final unless timely appeal is filed; Board may only review evidence presented at the referee hearing absent additional evidence under § 101.106.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal was timely filed under § 822. | Han contends timely appeal; relied on timeliness provisions. | Board determined untimely as not filed within 15 days. | Timeliness controls; Board did not have jurisdiction to review beyond 15 days. |
| Whether Han waived timeliness by failing to request a hearing on timeliness. | Requesting a hearing would have allowed evidentiary consideration. | Hearing not requested; timely filing not proven. | Board did not err; failure to request hearing forecloses consideration. |
| Whether the Board properly applied 101.61(a) to dismiss the appeal. | Regulations allow timeliness arguments and hearings. | Section 101.61(a) requires dismissal when late and no timely hearing. | Correct application; dismissal upheld. |
| Whether delivery/deemed receipt provisions under 101.82(b)(5) affect timeliness. | Argues appeal deemed received on actual delivery date to workforce office. | Timeliness governed by the 15‑day period from referee decision, not deemed receipt. | Regulations require timeliness to be pursued at hearing; not applicable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 942 A.2d 194 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (finality of referee decision; untimely appeal divests Board of jurisdiction)
- Pifer v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 62, 639 A.2d 1293 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994) (Board limited to evidence from referee unless 101.106 allows more evidence)
- Tener v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 130 Pa. Cmwlth. 433, 568 A.2d 733 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1990) (Board review constrained to referee record absent proper procedures)
- Ellwood City Hosp. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 73 Pa.Cmwlth. 78, 457 A.2d 231 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1983) (no post-hearing submissions outside record unless properly admitted)
- Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 505 Pa. 8, 476 A.2d 364 (Pa. 1984) (administrative timeliness governed by agency regulations, not appellate rules)