M. Gonzalez v. UCBR
M. Gonzalez v. UCBR - 1852 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Gonzalez was denied unemployment benefits by a Notice of Determination dated July 26, 2016, which stated the last day to appeal was August 10, 2016.
- Gonzalez admits he received that notice before August 10 but did not file an appeal until August 11, 2016 (by facsimile).
- At a referee hearing, Gonzalez testified he attempted to file an earlier appeal by e-mail (with his girlfriend’s help) around August 2 but offered no proof of transmission or receipt and did not verify delivery with the Service Center.
- The referee found the notice was mailed to Gonzalez’s last known address (not returned), he was not misled, and he failed to show fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent cause for the late filing; the referee dismissed the appeal as untimely.
- The Board affirmed, finding no credible evidence of the alleged August e-mail or inquiry, and Gonzalez appealed to this Court.
- On appeal, Gonzalez raised for the first time a different Notice of Determination (a “Second Notice”) showing an August 15 appeal deadline and argued his August 11 facsimile was timely; the Court held this issue was neither preserved nor part of the certified record and rejected it on the merits as irrelevant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gonzalez timely appealed the July 26 determination | Gonzalez contends he filed earlier by e-mail and/or that a Second Notice extended the appeal deadline to Aug 15 so his Aug 11 fax was timely | Service Center/Board: no proof of earlier e-mail; original notice gave Aug 10 deadline; second notice concerns a separate determination and is not in the record | Appeal untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether nunc pro tunc relief is warranted for untimeliness | Gonzalez implied delay was due to attempts to e‑file and confusion | Board: no evidence of fraud, administrative breakdown, or non‑negligent excuse; claimant bears burden | No nunc pro tunc relief; claimant failed to carry heavy burden |
| Whether the Second Notice could alter deadline | Gonzalez argues Second Notice listed Aug 15 deadline | Board: Second Notice relates to a separate backdating denial; not part of certified record; issue waived | Court declines to consider Second Notice; issue waived and irrelevant |
| Whether factual findings are supported by substantial evidence | Gonzalez challenges findings about mailing/receipt and credibility | Board/Referee point to unreturned mailed notice and lack of proof of e‑mail/receipt or inquiry | Findings supported; Court affirms under standards of review |
Key Cases Cited
- Renda v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 837 A.2d 685 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (15‑day appeal period is mandatory and strictly applied)
- Sofronski v. Civil Svc. Comm’n, City of Phila., 695 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (failure to timely appeal is a jurisdictional defect; time cannot be extended as grace)
- Blast Intermediate Unit #17 v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 645 A.2d 447 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (claimant bears heavy burden to justify untimely appeal)
- Cook v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (nunc pro tunc appeals allowed only for fraud, administrative breakdown, or non‑negligent third‑party cause)
- Grever v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 989 A.2d 400 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (issues not raised at earliest opportunity are waived)
- Croft v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 662 A.2d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (appellate courts may not consider material outside the certified record)