J. Abraham v. UCBR
424 C.D. 2024
Pa. Commw. Ct.Jun 11, 2025Background
- Joseph Abraham, a self-employed claimant, filed for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) in March 2020 due to COVID-19 impacts on his business.
- Initially, Abraham received PUA benefits at the maximum rate of $572 per week for 38 weeks, based on gross (not net) income as reported on his application.
- Upon review, the Unemployment Compensation Service Center revised his benefit rate downward to $195 per week, based on his actual net income of $658 in 2019, creating a non-fraud overpayment claim of $14,326.
- Abraham contested the overpayment determination and the timeliness of the administrative appeal decision, asserting the Referee delayed its decision beyond a 30-day federal guideline.
- The UC Board of Review affirmed the reduced benefit rate and overpayment amount, finding substantial evidence Abraham received the excess benefits, though without fraudulent intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Referee's Decision | Decision was issued late; federal rules require | PUA appeals governed by state law; 30-day DUA rule does not apply to PUA | 30-day federal requirement does not apply to PUA cases |
| Proof of Overpayment | No evidence actual overpayment received | Department records and Abraham’s admissions show he received excess payments | Substantial evidence supports overpayment finding |
| Admissibility of Evidence | Cancelled checks required to prove payment | Claimant’s testimony and Department records suffice | Cancelled checks not required; record sufficient |
| Dispute over Weekly Benefit Rate | Challenged payment calculation | Corrected benefit based on net, not gross, income per regulations | Downward adjustment correct, not disputed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce-Boyce v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 289 A.3d 130 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (outlines Board's role as fact-finder and substantial evidence standard)
- Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (sets forth substantial evidence criteria in UC cases)
- Feinsod v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 624 A.2d 762 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (findings not specifically challenged on appeal are conclusive)