P.D. Phillips v. UCBR, P.D. Phillips v. UCBR

Background

Patricia D. Phillips (Claimant) worked hourly for H&R Block and filed for unemployment benefits; Department mailed determinations denying benefits and imposing overpayments/penalties to Claimant’s last-known address.
Claimant filed initial appeals from those determinations on March 10, 2016, which were found untimely; a referee scheduled an April 1, 2016 hearing on timeliness, but Claimant did not appear.
Referee dismissed the March appeals as untimely by decisions mailed April 7, 2016, which contained a 15-day appeal period.
Claimant filed appeals from the referee decisions on May 5, 2016 (late), accompanied by a letter and email explaining she did not receive prior mailed notices and requesting “a chance to state [her] case.”
UCBR notified Claimant (May 10, 2016) that her appeals appeared untimely and instructed her to request a hearing on timeliness in writing by May 25, 2016; Claimant did not submit a separate written request, so UCBR dismissed the appeals on June 8, 2016.
Claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which vacated the UCBR orders and remanded for a timeliness hearing because Claimant’s May 5 communications sufficiently requested an opportunity to be heard on timeliness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant’s May 5, 2016 submissions constituted a timely request for a hearing on the timeliness of her appeal	Phillips argued her May 5 letter and email demonstrated she asked for a chance to be heard and explained why filings were late (no mailed notices, phone attempts, heavy work schedule).	UCBR argued Claimant failed to comply with the May 10 instruction to specifically request a timeliness hearing by the May 25 deadline, so dismissal was proper.	Court held Claimant’s May 5 letter/email sufficiently requested a hearing on timeliness; UCBR should have scheduled a hearing without requiring a second specific request.
Whether UCBR properly dismissed untimely appeals without taking additional evidence	Phillips contended UCBR should consider excuse for late filing based on her factual explanations and attempts to contact the Department.	UCBR maintained it complied with regulation by notifying Claimant and dismissing when no reply was received within 15 days.	Court ruled UCBR erred: procedural notice cannot be applied so technically as to deny the remedial purpose; remand for a timeliness hearing to take evidence under regulation.
Whether claimant’s proffered reasons (lack of mailed notice, phone errors, heavy work/family crises) could excuse late filing	Phillips argued these are non-negligent, excusable grounds warranting consideration.	UCBR relied on presumption of receipt where mail not returned and case law that mere assertion of nonreceipt is insufficient without opportunity to rebut.	Court held the proffered reasons, if proven, could justify excusing the late filing and Claimant was entitled to an opportunity to present evidence.
Whether liberal construction of UC remedial statute requires relaxation of procedural formality here	Phillips urged generous construction to avoid unjust dismissal on procedural technicality.	UCBR applied strict regulatory notice/dates to dismiss for lack of a formal written hearing request.	Court applied liberal remedial construction (citing precedent) and remanded to avoid unjust, form-over-substance dismissal.

Key Cases Cited

Hessou v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 942 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (explains heavy burden to excuse untimely appeals and two recognized grounds for relief)
Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 476 A.2d 364 (Pa. 1984) (disfavors overly technical application of procedural rules and disfavours dismissals)
Mihelic v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 399 A.2d 825 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (presumption of receipt when notice mailed to claimant’s last-known address)
Volk v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 49 A.3d 38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (necessity of providing addressee opportunity to rebut presumption of receipt)