R. Carnevale, Jr. v. UCBR, 412 C.D. 2024

Ronald Carnevale, Jr. applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) in April 2020 and initially received a weekly benefit amount (WBA) of $572, later reduced to $195.
In June 2021, Carnevale received a notice from the Department of a non-fraud overpayment of PUA benefits totaling $5,278, with a 15-day deadline to appeal.
Carnevale filed an untimely appeal challenging the overpayment determination in October 2021, months after the appeal deadline.
The Referee dismissed Carnevale’s appeal as untimely; notice of rights and deadlines was mailed to his home address.
Carnevale appealed the Referee's dismissal to the Board in December 2022, also past the 21-day appeal deadline, and did not request a hearing on the timeliness issue after being notified by the Board.
The Board dismissed the appeal as untimely, and Carnevale then petitioned the Commonwealth Court, alleging non-receipt of the Referee’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal to the Board was timely filed	Carnevale argued he did not receive the Referee’s decision, so the appeal should be allowed nunc pro tunc.	Board argued Carnevale failed to timely appeal and did not request a hearing when notified of untimeliness.	Appeal was untimely; Board dismissal affirmed.
Whether alleged non-receipt warrants nunc pro tunc relief	Carnevale claimed administrative breakdown since the Referee Decision was sent only to his home, not attorney.	Board argued Carnevale’s mere denial of receipt was insufficient, and he failed to raise the issue at the proper time.	No basis for nunc pro tunc; relief not granted.
Whether the Board ruled on PUA eligibility	Carnevale alleged the Board ruled on his PUA eligibility (it did not).	Board noted its order only addressed untimeliness, not eligibility.	Issue not before the Court; not addressed.
Whether mailing notation is enough to presume receipt	Carnevale argued mailing notation didn’t prove receipt, so “mailbox rule” should not apply.	Board cited presumption of receipt; argued timeliness issue should have been raised at Board hearing.	Carnevale did not timely assert non-receipt; no relief.

Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (extraordinary circumstances required for nunc pro tunc relief)
Dull v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 955 A.2d 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (mailbox rule presumes receipt of decisions)
Han v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 42 A.3d 1155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (issue not raised before Board cannot be raised for first time on review)
Carney v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 181 A.3d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (untimely appeal deprives Board of jurisdiction)