J. Banks v. UCBR, J. Banks v. UCBR

Jonathan Banks was discharged by Crothall Healthcare for excessive tardiness on March 1, 2016 and applied for unemployment benefits.
The local service center found Banks eligible under §401(d)(1) but disqualified him under §402(e) for willful misconduct; it mailed a determination and gave a 15-day appeal deadline (last day May 20, 2016).
Banks filed an appeal on May 27, 2016, claiming he never received the notice (it was allegedly lost or misdelivered to his father/neighbor); a referee hearing was held.
The referee found the notice was mailed to Banks’ last known address, the file contained no returned-mail evidence, and Banks’ uncorroborated testimony was insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt; the referee dismissed the late appeal.
The Board adopted the referee’s decision; Banks appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed—holding Banks failed to meet the heavy burden for nunc pro tunc relief because no extraordinary circumstances (fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent third‑party conduct) were shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mailed notice was received/presumption of receipt	Banks: never received mailed notice; it was lost/misdelivered by father/neighbor	Board: notice mailed to last known address and not returned; presumption of receipt applies	Presumption stands; unchallenged findings that notice was mailed control
Whether appellant justified nunc pro tunc relief for late appeal	Banks: late because he did not receive notice; implied reliance on personal hardship	Board: no evidence of fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent third‑party conduct to excuse lateness	Nunc pro tunc denied—no extraordinary circumstances shown
Admissibility/weight of claimant testimony to rebut mailbox rule	Banks: his testimony denying receipt is credible and should rebut presumption	Board: uncorroborated testimony insufficient absent returned mail or other evidence	Court: testimony alone was insufficient here; claimant conceded misplacement by father, and findings unchallenged
Standard for strict enforcement of 15‑day appeal period	Banks: equitable relief warranted given circumstances	Board: filing deadline is mandatory and exceptions are narrowly construed	15‑day limit strictly enforced; exceptions narrowly applied; burden on claimant is heavy

John Kenneth, Ltd. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 444 A.2d 824 (establishing presumption of receipt when mailed to last known address)
Suber v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 126 A.3d 410 (15‑day appeal period is mandatory; heavy burden for nunc pro tunc relief)
Mountain Home Beagle Media v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 955 A.2d 484 (nunc pro tunc permitted for fraud, administrative breakdown, or non‑negligent third‑party conduct)
Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. v. Insurance Department, 719 A.2d 825 (mailbox rule is a rebuttable evidentiary presumption; testimony can rebut presumption)
Vereb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 676 A.2d 1290 (filing deadlines strictly enforced; exceptions narrowly construed)
Munski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 A.3d 133 (unchallenged factual findings are binding on appeal)
Yi v. State Board of Veterinary Medicine, 960 A.2d 864 (absence of evidence cannot support a positive factual finding)