McKnight v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
99 A.3d 946
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Claimant LeShane Kellsey McKnight seeks review of the Board's order dismissing his appeal as untimely under section 502.
- McKnight previously worked as an assembler for Hoffman Industries from Sep 2011 to Dec 19, 2012; after separation, benefits were denied and a referee held a hearing on June 18, 2013.
- The referee found that McKnight voluntarily quit in violation of policy and did not show a necessitous and compelling reason, denying benefits under 402(b).
- Referee's decision was mailed June 21, 2013; the final date to appeal was July 8, 2013; the Board received the appeal July 10, 2013.
- The Board remanded to a referee for a timeliness hearing; hearing held Aug 23, 2013; McKnight testified he mailed July 5, 2013, but the envelope lacked a postmark.
- The Board concluded the filing date was July 10, 2013, beyond the fifteen-day period, and dismissed the appeal as untimely; McKnight argues for nunc pro tunc relief and a liberal reading of §101.82(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the appeal timely filed? | McKnight contends timing should be liberalized. | Board treated filing as untimely under §101.82(b) with receipt date control when no postmark. | Yes; Board properly dismissed as untimely. |
| Whether private postage meter evidence can establish filing date? | McKnight seeks flexible proof beyond postmark due to lack of postmark. | Board relies on Lin/UGI and §101.82; private meter marks are insufficient where no postmark. | Board correctly rejected testimony; meter date not adequate proof. |
| Did 34 Pa.Code §101.82(b) allow evidence beyond postmark to establish filing date? | Regulation should be liberally construed post-2003 amendment to accommodate timely filing. | Regulation, as interpreted by the Board, does not contemplate testimony as proof of mailing. | Board's interpretation was not clearly erroneous; amendment does not require testimonial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 558 Pa. 94 (Pa. 1999) (private meter marks not equivalent to USPS postmark)
- UGI Utilities, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 776 A.2d 344 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (barcode insufficient; need reliable date; endorse regulation amendment)
- Shea v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 898 A.2d 31 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (flexibility via 2003 amendment; fifteen-day period mandatory)
- Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 505 Pa. 8 (Pa. 1984) (filing date must be discernible from document or internal records)