Russo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
13 A.3d 1000
Pa. Commw. Ct.2010Background
- Claimant Ann Russo sought review of a Board decision affirming a referee's dismissal of her unemployment appeal as untimely under 42 U.S.C. § 402(e) and 34 Pa. Code § 101.82.
- The UC Service Center denied benefits for willful misconduct; notice stated the last day to appeal was December 29, 2009.
- Claimant delivered a completed appeal form to a drop-off box at the Scranton UC Service Center on December 29, 2009, without postage, and a note indicated it was picked up December 30, 2009.
- The referee found the appeal untimely; the Board credited a late filing date of December 30, 2009 and rejected good cause for nunc pro tunc relief.
- The Board held the appeal was untimely as a matter of law and that no extraordinary circumstances and no misguidance by authorities supported nunc pro tunc relief.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that mailing instructions required mail or other defined delivery methods and that drop-box submission cannot constitute personal delivery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Claimant asserts timely filing by in-person delivery on 12/29/09. | Board found timely filing not shown; envelope picked up 12/30/09 fixes date. | Untimely filing affirmed; date of filing is 12/30/09. |
| Method of filing | Delivery in person should be considered timely. | Notice required mail or other approved methods; drop-off not personal delivery. | Drop-off box not personal delivery; not a valid timely method. |
| Nunc pro tunc relief | Testimony shows timely intent; circumstances warrant nunc pro tunc; claimant relied on foyer sign. | Statutory period mandatory; no extraordinary circumstances shown. | No nunc pro tunc relief; timely filing not established. |
| Board credibility/regularity | Credibility of drop-off timing supported by claimant’s evidence. | Board credited envelope notation and regular course of business; credibility resolved against claimant. | Board credibility findings supported; regularity presumed absent fraud. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sofronski v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 695 A.2d 921 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (failure to timely appeal is a jurisdictional defect; credibility matters)
- Cameron v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 430 A.2d 396 (Pa.Cmwlth.1981) (regularity of agency action presumed; no fraud shown)
- Cook v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa.1983) (mandatory appeal period; non-persuasive delays not tolled)
- Cumberland Valley Animal Shelter v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 881 A.2d 10 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (timeliness where failure due to agency's handling; distinguishable)