R. Peters v. UCBR, R. Peters v. UCBR

Claimant Richard L. Peters received unemployment benefits in 2009–2010; Department issued determinations in Dec. 2010 declaring him ineligible and assessing overpayments and penalties.
Appeals from those determinations had to be filed within 15 days; Claimant filed appeals in July 2011 (late) but then requested withdrawal; referee granted withdrawal on Dec. 2, 2011 and notified Claimant the final date to appeal to the Board was Dec. 19, 2011.
Claimant received the referee orders but did not appeal; he later received repeated billing and a tax refund garnishment in 2013–2014 notifying him the overpayment remained enforceable.
Claimant did not file any appeal until Aug. 13, 2016 (more than four years after the referee’s orders), asserting he had believed the withdrawal orders relieved him of repayment.
The Board dismissed the 2016 appeals as untimely, finding no fraud or administrative breakdown and concluding Claimant did not act promptly to seek nunc pro tunc relief; Department records and employer evidence had been purged or unavailable, causing prejudice.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Claimant failed to meet the heavy burden for nunc pro tunc relief and that the long delay prejudiced the Department.

Issue	Peters' Argument	Board/Department Argument	Held
Whether Claimant's 2016 appeals could be treated nunc pro tunc despite missing the 15‑day deadline	The Dec. 2, 2011 withdrawal orders misled Peters into believing overpayments were reversed, excusing his failure to timely appeal	Statutory 15‑day deadline applies; no showing of fraud or administrative breakdown; withdrawal orders did not reverse overpayments	Denied — petitioner failed to establish extraordinary circumstances and did not act promptly; appeal untimely
Whether the delay justified relief even if extraordinary circumstances existed (promptness & prejudice)	Peters argued delay was reasonable given his misunderstanding and Department actions (billing, garnishment occurred later)	Delay of >4 years was not prompt; Department prejudiced because records and employer evidence were purged or unavailable	Denied — delay was not prompt and prejudice to Department bars nunc pro tunc relief

Dull v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 955 A.2d 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (appeal from referee must be filed within statutorily prescribed time)
Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 942 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (statutory time limits for appeals are mandatory and burden for nunc pro tunc relief is heavy)
Russo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (nunc pro tunc relief requires extraordinary circumstances and prompt action)
Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (nunc pro tunc appeals must be filed promptly; factors include short delay and absence of prejudice)
Fugh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 153 A.3d 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (Department may collect fault overpayments by civil action or lien)