J. Luszczynski v. UCBR
872 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Claimant John Luszczynski filed for unemployment benefits effective January 8, 2017, establishing a base year Oct. 1, 2015–Sept. 30, 2016.
- Base-year wages: Q4 2015 $0; Q1 2016 $2,402; Q2 2016 $16,598 (high quarter); Q3 2016 $5,810; total $24,810.
- The UC Service Center concluded Claimant was financially ineligible under Sections 401(a)(2) and 404 because wages paid outside the high quarter ($8,212) were less than 37% of total base-year wages ($9,179.70 required).
- At the Referee hearing Claimant agreed the Notice of Financial Determination numbers were accurate and asked for leniency; Referee denied benefits.
- On appeal to the Board Claimant argued (for the first time) that $1,201.28 earned on Mar. 28–31, 2016 should be allocated to Q1 (when earned) rather than Q2 (when paid on Apr. 7), which would meet the 37% threshold; the Board rejected new documents not admitted at hearing and affirmed the Referee.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: evidence allocation is by payment date, Claimant waived the reallocation argument by failing to raise it at the hearing, and submitted documents were not in the certified record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wages earned Mar. 28–31, 2016 should be allocated to Q1 2016 instead of Q2 2016 | Luszczynski: those wages were earned in Q1 and should be allocated to Q1, which would make him meet the 37% rule | Board/UC: wages are allocated to the quarter when paid; Claimant waived this issue by agreeing to numbers at the Referee hearing and failed to admit documents into evidence | Held for Board: wages are allocated by payment date; Claimant waived the argument and submitted documents are not part of the record; denial affirmed |
| Whether the Board may consider documents attached to the appeal that were not introduced at the Referee hearing | Luszczynski: Board should consider paystubs, calendar, and handbook page attached to appeal | Board: cannot consider documents not admitted into evidence before the Referee | Held for Board: documents not in certified record cannot be considered on appeal |
| Whether equitable leniency can excuse failure to meet statutory 37% requirement | Luszczynski: asked for leniency because he was close to the threshold | Board/UC: statutory eligibility requirements are strict; no flexible interpretation permitted | Held for Board: statutory provisions are explicit; compassionate interpretation not allowed |
| Whether the Referee/Board misapplied the UC law in calculating eligibility | Luszczynski: calculation should include reallocated wages to meet 37% | Board/Referee: calculations correct based on payment-date allocation and record evidence | Held for Board: calculations (with minor arithmetic corrections noted in opinion) show Claimant did not meet 37% threshold |
Key Cases Cited
- Pagliei v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 37 A.3d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (claimant bears burden to prove financial eligibility)
- Devine v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 101 A.3d 1235 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (Sections 401 and 404 are explicit; no compassionate re-interpretation)
- Wooley v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 454 A.2d 224 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (wages included in quarter in which received, not when earned)
- Croft v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 662 A.2d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (appellate court cannot consider documents not in certified record)
- Watkins v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 751 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (issues not raised at hearing are waived on appeal)
- Dehus v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 545 A.2d 434 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (same waiver principle)