J. Waters-Bey v. UCBR, J. Waters-Bey v. UCBR

Claimant worked for IRS Feb 10–Jun 26, 2015 as a seasonal tax examiner.
She filed for unemployment benefits effective July 5, 2015.
July 14, 2015 Notice of Financial Determination found her not financially eligible; 15-day appeal period ran. Claimant filed timely? No: paperwork received July 30, 2015.
Referee dismissed the timely appeal as untimely on August 24, 2015; Board dismissed the appeal as untimely on October 16, 2015.
October 30, 2015 Notice of Revised Standing stated the appeal from October 9, 2015 notice was vacated during investigation.
December 30, 2015 Revised Notice of Financial Determination again found not financially eligible; Claimant timely appealed.
February 8, 2016 hearing; Claimant asserted miscalculation of pay periods affected base year allocation.
Referee vacated the December 30, 2015 Revised Financial Determination as a nullity and directed a new determination based on evidence presented.
Board affirmed March 24, 2016, holding Department lacked jurisdiction due to prior Board dismissal and finality of initial determination.
Pennsylvania courts consider whether revised determinations issued after an appeal period can be used to create new rights; Martyna v. UCBR is pivotal to authority for revisions post-appeal period.
Court reverses Board and remands for merits consistent with this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Department lacked jurisdiction to issue a revised financial determination after the original determination became final.	Waters-Bey argues Martyna controlling, permitting post-appeal-period revisions; breakdown of process occurred.	Board and Department contend original determination was final and revisions outside the appeal period lack jurisdiction.	Yes; but Martyna controls, and the Board had jurisdiction to consider the December 30, 2015 determination.
Whether the Board properly dismissed Waters-Bey's appeal as untimely.	Waters-Bey contends she had rights to appeal the Revised Financial Determination.	Board relied on untimeliness of prior notices and finality rules.	The Board’s untimeliness reasoning is superseded; the matter remanded for merits.
Whether the decision to vacate the December 30, 2015 determination and remand for a new determination was proper.	Waters-Bey asserts the December 30, 2015 notice created new rights; the process compromised.	Department claimed jurisdiction and proper procedure under law to revise determinations.	Remand for merits; validity of the revised determination is to be decided on the merits.

Deep v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 595 A.2d 229 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (unappealed decisions are final and binding)
Chandler v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 580 A.2d 457 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (finality principles in unemployment determinations)
Lentz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 402 A.2d 1127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (finality of decisions; appeal requirements)
Garza v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 669 A.2d 445 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (Department may revise within fifteen-day period if no timely appeal)
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 991 A.2d 971 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (cannot issue revised notices after appeal period expires)
Vereb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 676 A.2d 1290 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (finality and collateral attack considerations)
First National Bank of Bath v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 619 A.2d 801 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (finality rules for determinations)
Martyna v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 692 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (administrative breakdown recognized; authority to issue revised determinations after appeal period; remand for merits)