J.A. Williams v. UCBR
J.A. Williams v. UCBR - 626 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Jun 27, 2017Background
- Claimant Job A. Williams worked as a cook July–Sept 2015; employer reduced his hours in early September but continued to schedule him.
- Claimant was a no call/no show on October 3, 2015; he filed an unemployment claim on October 5, 2015, reporting his separation was due to “lack of work.”
- The Local Service Center paid benefits based on that claim; Employer later responded that Claimant voluntarily quit on October 3, 2015.
- Referee found Claimant had received $1,603 in benefits and concluded he omitted material facts or deliberately withheld information to obtain benefits, creating a fault overpayment under Section 804(a).
- The Board affirmed the Referee’s decision; Claimant appealed to this Court arguing (1) his statements did not cause the payments because benefits began before the Service Center questioned his eligibility, (2) finding of fact 25 lacked specificity, and (3) he was confused by the phrase “lack of work” and lacked intent to mislead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s assertion of “lack of work” caused payment of benefits | Williams: Payments began immediately; alleged misrepresentations were communicated after benefits started, so they did not cause payments | Board: Claimant’s initial representation that separation was for lack of work induced payments; later employer response prompted investigation | Held: Claimant received benefits because he initially claimed lack of work; payments properly began on that basis |
| Whether finding of fact 25 (omission/withholding) is a legal conclusion without factual basis | Williams: FOF 25 fails to identify what material fact was omitted; therefore it is conclusory | Board: Entire record (e.g., FOF 22 and hearing evidence) supplies factual foundation for the finding | Held: FOF 25 is supported by other findings and the record; not impermissibly conclusory |
| Whether Claimant acted without intent (confusion defense) such that fault cannot be found | Williams: He was confused by phrase “lack of work” and believed reduced hours justified the selection; similar cases (Cruz, Fugh) found no fault where confusion credited | Board: Credibility is for the factfinder; circumstantial evidence supports an inference of deliberate withholding; Claimant’s testimony was not credited | Held: Board’s credibility determination sustained; circumstantial evidence supports finding of deliberate omission and fault |
| Whether the Board may rely on extra-record materials (UC Handbook) on appeal | Williams: N/A | Board: Asked court to take judicial notice of Handbook mailed to Claimant | Held: Court refused judicial notice of Handbook because it was not in the certified record and Claimant had no opportunity to rebut it |
Key Cases Cited
- Fugh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 153 A.3d 1169 (Pa. 2017) (fault includes knowing recklessness or gross negligence; claimant’s state of mind is required)
- Cruz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 531 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (confusion about claim form can preclude fault if credited)
- Daniels v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 309 A.2d 738 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (definition of fault as more than a voluntary act)
- Greenawalt v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 543 A.2d 209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (Board must make findings regarding claimant’s state of mind to find fault)
- Ryan v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 547 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (withholding material information that affects eligibility supports finding of fault)