M. Torres v. UCBR
67-69 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Maria Torres filed unemployment claims (2008, 2009) and later received EUC benefits through July 2, 2011; she moved in 2010 and updated her address with USPS but did not notify the unemployment local service center.
- In September 2012 the local service center mailed determinations to Torres’s last known address of record (1354 Riverside Drive) assessing overpayments totaling $17,582; the notices were not returned as undeliverable.
- The appeal deadline on the notices lapsed; Torres only learned of the debts in August 2015 when her federal tax refund was intercepted and she filed an appeal the same month.
- At hearing Torres testified she had submitted a change-of-address request to USPS and that USPS did not forward the determinations; she could not produce the USPS form because records are kept only 18–24 months.
- The referee and Board dismissed her appeal as untimely under 43 P.S. §821(e), reasoning that (1) mail was mailed to her last known address and not returned, creating a presumption of receipt, and (2) her failure to notify the unemployment office of her new address constituted claimant negligence.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded, holding the Board failed to make required credibility findings about Torres’s USPS-forwarding testimony and misapplied precedent by treating failure to notify the unemployment office as per se fatal to a nunc pro tunc claim when third-party (USPS) mishandling might be the cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant may obtain nunc pro tunc relief for untimely appeal when notice was mailed to last known address but allegedly not forwarded by USPS | Torres: she filed a USPS change-of-address, USPS failed to forward notices, so delay was due to non-negligent third-party conduct | Board: notice mailed to last known address and not returned; claimant failed to update unemployment office address, so delay was due to claimant negligence | Remanded: Board must make explicit credibility/findings on whether USPS forwarding failure occurred; third-party postal failure can justify nunc pro tunc relief if credited |
| Whether the presumption of receipt was rebutted | Torres: her credible testimony and circumstantial facts rebut presumption | Board: absence of returned mail and claimant’s failure to notify local service center mean presumption stands | Court: Board failed to resolve credibility; remand required to determine whether presumption was rebutted |
| Whether claimant’s failure to notify the unemployment office is per se bar to relief | Torres: even if she did not notify the agency, USPS failure could be the superseding cause | Board: claimant’s duty to update address makes her negligent and bars relief | Court: Not per se; Walker and related precedent permit relief where third-party (postal) negligence caused delay; Board must assess factual dispute |
| Whether appellate court may make credibility findings de novo | Torres: asks court to accept her testimony | Board: factual findings are for agency | Court: appellate court cannot make credibility findings; remand to Board required for those determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman-Hutchinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 972 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (appeal deadline consequences and finality rule)
- Mihelic v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 399 A.2d 825 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (presumption of receipt when mailed to last known address and not returned)
- Volk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 A.3d 38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (acknowledging occasional mail loss despite presumption of delivery)
- Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 461 A.2d 346 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (USPS failure to forward mail can justify nunc pro tunc relief despite claimant not updating agency address)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (citing Walker: USPS forwarding failures may warrant nunc pro tunc relief)
- Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 942 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (standards for nunc pro tunc relief for fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent third-party conduct)