S.D. Rodriguez v. UCBR, S.D. Rodriguez v. UCBR

Background

Claimant Stephen D. Rodriguez filed for unemployment benefits on September 20, 2015; benefits were denied under Section 402(b) (voluntary leaving).
Referee affirmed the denial after a hearing held November 5, 2015; decision mailed to Claimant’s last known address and stated appeal deadline of November 23, 2015.
Claimant filed an appeal on December 30, 2015, which the Board treated as untimely and remanded for testimony on good cause for the delay.
At the remand hearing, Claimant testified he received the decision on time but delayed appealing because he was trying to get his job back.
The Board dismissed the appeal as untimely under Section 502; Claimant sought review in this Court arguing he did not receive notice, lacked counsel at hearing, and that he was wrongly found ineligible under Section 402(b).
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the appeal was untimely and the Board lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal was timely	Rodriguez contends he did not receive the referee’s decision timely	Board found Claimant admitted receipt and intentionally delayed filing	Appeal untimely; dismissal affirmed
Whether claimant showed good cause / administrative breakdown	Rodriguez argued delay without fault or due to not receiving notice	Board relied on Claimant’s testimony that he received notice and delayed to seek reemployment	No good cause; statutory 15‑day limit jurisdictional
Whether lack of counsel violated due process	Rodriguez argued he was unrepresented and disadvantaged	Board/Referee advised Claimant of right to counsel and conducted hearing fairly	Due process satisfied; no duty to advocate for claimant
Whether Board erred by not addressing merits (Section 402(b))	Rodriguez asserted eligibility and challenged merits finding	Board argued it lacked jurisdiction due to untimely appeal	Board properly declined to reach merits; Court affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Gannett Satellite Info. Sys., Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 661 A.2d 502 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (15‑day appeal requirement is jurisdictional)
Russo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (statutory appeal period is mandatory and not extendable as a matter of grace)
Roman‑Hutchinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 972 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (heavy burden to justify consideration of untimely appeal)
Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 942 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (permissible bases for excusing late appeal: administrative breakdown or non‑negligent conduct)
Flores v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 686 A.2d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (claimant admissions can constitute substantial evidence supporting Board findings)
Criswell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 393 A.2d 1071 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (credibility determinations lie with the Board)
McFadden v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 806 A.2d 955 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
Brennan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 487 A.2d 73 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (referee must assist unrepresented claimants but need not act as advocate)
Lauffer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 434 A.2d 249 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (referee not required to advise on points of law for uncounseled claimants)
Bennett v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 445 A.2d 258 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (referee must develop facts sufficiently so eligible claimants receive benefits and ineligible claimants do not)
Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board is ultimate factfinder in UC proceedings)
Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 841 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (scope of appellate review limited to legal error, constitutional violations, and substantial‑evidence review)