Narducci v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 183 A.3d 488

Narducci worked for PECO and was suspended Sept. 13, 2013 after throwing a bottle at a coworker; Employer later discharged him for willful misconduct (letter dated Oct. 14, 2013).
Claimant filed an online UC application on Oct. 13, 2013 reporting separation as "lack of work;" a financial eligibility form was generated Oct. 17/21, 2013 and benefits were paid beginning October 2013.
Employer submitted a Request for Relief from Charges on Nov. 5, 2013; the Department’s claim record shows receipt of that request on Dec. 16, 2013, but no action was taken then due to staffing/prioritization issues.
Employer again protested in July 2014; the Department sent questionnaires Aug. 4, 2014 and on Aug. 21, 2014 issued determinations denying benefits (Section 402(e)), assessing a $14,768 fault overpayment and penalties (15% and penalty weeks).
After administrative appeals and a remand from this Court to resolve whether any October 2013 determination was final, the Board concluded no final eligibility determination had been issued in October 2013 and sustained the August 21, 2014 determinations; this Court affirmed.

Issue	Narducci's Argument	Unemployment Compensation Board/Department's Argument	Held
Whether Department lost jurisdiction by failing to issue a written determination in Oct. 2013 such that Employer had 15 days to appeal and the award became final	The initial grant/financial determination in Oct. 2013 was final; Employer must be presumed to have received notice and failed to appeal within 15 days, so the Department lacked jurisdiction to reopen	No written determination on eligibility was issued in Oct. 2013 because Employer had not timely provided separation info; Section 501 allows the Department to revise determinations when employer later supplies information and imposes no strict time limit to do so	Court held the Department retained jurisdiction; no final written eligibility determination issued in Oct. 2013 and the Department permissibly issued determinations in Aug. 2014
Whether a fault overpayment and penalties were proper	Narducci argued his misstatement (reporting layoff) was reasonable or inadvertent and not intended to mislead; thus fault should not be found	Board argued Claimant knowingly and intentionally misreported the reason for separation, omitted material facts when signing for benefits, and therefore his receipt of benefits was due to "fault" under Section 804(a)	Court affirmed Board credibility finding and sustained the fault overpayment and penalties (Board is sole factfinder; substantial evidence supports finding of intentional misreporting)

Amspacher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 479 A.2d 688 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (defines "fault" for UC overpayment purposes)
Summers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 430 A.2d 1046 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (failure to disclose material facts supports fault overpayment)
Castello v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 86 A.3d 294 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (intentional misstatements on application can establish fault)
Garza v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 669 A.2d 445 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (determination may be revised before it becomes final; appeal bars revision)
Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board’s factfinding and credibility determinations are binding)
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 991 A.2d 971 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (once appeal period expires a determination becomes final and Board may lose jurisdiction)
Sheets v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 708 A.2d 884 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (scope of appellate review limited to constitutional issues, errors of law, or lack of substantial evidence)