M. F. Russo v. UCBR ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Madeline F. Russo,                       :
    Petitioner             :
    :
    v.                                 : No. 1676 C.D. 2017
    : SUBMITTED: July 12, 2019
    Unemployment Compensation                :
    Board of Review,                         :
    Respondent              :
    BEFORE:      HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
    HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
    HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY JUDGE CEISLER                                        FILED: August 29, 2019
    Madeline F. Russo (Claimant) petitions for review of the November 8, 2017
    Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying her
    Request for Reconsideration of the Board’s October 12, 2017 Order, which affirmed
    the decision of a Referee to deny Claimant’s claim for unemployment compensation
    (UC) benefits under Section 401(d)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law
    (Law), 43 P.S. § 801(d)(1).1 Also before this Court is the Board’s Application for
    Summary Relief, asking this Court to affirm the Board’s November 8, 2017 Order
    because Claimant has waived any challenge to the propriety of that Order. For the
    reasons that follow, we grant the Board’s Application for Summary Relief and affirm
    the Board’s November 8, 2017 Order.
    1
    Section 401(d)(1) of the Law provides that unemployment “[c]ompensation shall be
    payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed, and who . . . [i]s able to work and
    available for suitable work.” 43 P.S. § 801(d)(1).
    Background
    On July 12, 2017, after a hearing, the Referee issued an Order denying
    Claimant’s claim for UC benefits. Record (R.) Item No. 10.2 Claimant timely
    appealed to the Board, which affirmed the Referee’s decision on October 12, 2017.
    
    Id. Nos. 11,
    12. On October 16, 2017, Claimant filed a Request for Reconsideration
    with the Board.         
    Id. No. 13.
           The Board denied Claimant’s Request for
    Reconsideration on November 8, 2017. 
    Id. No. 14.
           On November 15, 2017, Claimant filed a Petition for Review with this Court,
    challenging the Board’s October 12, 2017 Order. In response, the Board filed an
    Application to Quash Claimant’s appeal as untimely, arguing that Claimant’s
    Petition for Review was filed more than 30 days after the Board’s October 12, 2017
    Order. On February 6, 2018, this Court denied the Board’s Application to Quash,
    stating that although Claimant’s appeal from the Board’s October 12, 2017 Order
    was untimely, Claimant timely appealed within 30 days of the Board’s November 8,
    2017 Order denying reconsideration.
    Thereafter, the Board filed with this Court an Application for Summary
    Relief, asserting that Claimant waived any challenge to the Board’s November 8,
    2017 Order by failing to argue – in either her Petition for Review or her appellate
    brief – that the Board abused its discretion in denying her Request for
    Reconsideration. The Board claims that it is entitled to summary relief because
    Claimant waived the only issue properly before this Court. Claimant did not file an
    answer to the Board’s Application for Summary Relief. On May 22, 2018, this Court
    2
    Given the procedural posture of this appeal, we do not address herein the Board’s findings
    of fact or conclusions of law relating to Claimant’s claim for UC benefits because, as explained
    infra, we are not permitted to review the merits of the Board’s underlying decision on the UC
    claim.
    2
    directed that the Application for Summary Relief be considered in conjunction with
    Claimant’s Petition for Review.
    Analysis
    Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1532(b) states that “[a]t any time
    after the filing of a petition for review in an appellate or original jurisdiction matter[,]
    the court may on application enter judgment if the right of the applicant thereto is
    clear.” Pa. R.A.P. 1532(b). In ruling on an application for summary relief, we must
    view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and may enter
    judgment only if: (1) there are no genuine issues of material fact, and (2) the right
    to relief is clear as a matter of law. Nw. Youth Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare,
    
    1 A.3d 988
    , 990 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), aff’d, 
    66 A.3d 301
    (Pa. 2013).
    In its Application for Summary Relief, the Board contends that Claimant has
    waived any challenge to the Board’s November 8, 2017 Order denying her Request
    for Reconsideration because she makes no argument on appeal relating to the denial
    of reconsideration. We agree with the Board.
    It is well settled that our scope of review of an order denying reconsideration
    is “limited to determining whether the [Board] abused its discretion.” Georgia-
    Pacific Corp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    630 A.2d 948
    , 951 (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 1993). The party alleging an abuse of discretion bears the burden of
    showing that “the [Board’s] decision demonstrates evidence of bad faith, fraud,
    capricious action[,] or abuse of power.” 
    Id. In both
    her Petition for Review and her appellate brief, Claimant presents no
    argument whatsoever regarding the propriety of the Board’s denial of
    3
    reconsideration.3 Significantly, Claimant does not contend that the Board abused its
    discretion in denying her request to reconsider its earlier decision on the merits.
    Rather, Claimant argues only that the Board erred in affirming the denial of UC
    benefits under Section 401(d)(1) of the Law. However, the Board’s underlying
    decision on the merits of the UC claim is not before this Court because, as explained
    above, Claimant did not timely appeal from that Order.                          See Williams v.
    Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    125 A.3d 875
    , 876 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (stating
    that where the claimant files an untimely petition for review from the Board’s
    decision on the merits but files a timely petition for review from the Board’s order
    denying reconsideration, this Court’s “review is limited to the [Board’s] denial of
    reconsideration”). Therefore, we conclude that Claimant has waived any challenge
    to the Board’s denial of reconsideration. See Jimoh v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of
    Review, 
    902 A.2d 608
    , 611 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (recognizing that issues not included
    in a petition for review or fairly comprised therein are waived); Rapid Pallet v.
    Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    707 A.2d 636
    , 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998)
    (holding that the failure to develop an issue in an appellate brief results in waiver).4
    Even if Claimant had properly preserved a challenge to the Board’s denial of
    reconsideration, we would find no abuse of discretion by the Board. The Board’s
    regulations state that reconsideration may be granted “only for good cause in the
    interest of justice without prejudice to any party.” 34 Pa. Code § 101.111(b)
    (emphasis added). Moreover, “[i]n determining whether ‘good cause’ exists, the
    3
    Claimant’s brief contains a single reference to the reconsideration Order in her recitation
    of the procedural history of the case. See Claimant’s Br. at 6. Claimant’s Petition for Review does
    not mention the reconsideration Order at all. See Pet. for Review, 11/15/17, at 1-3.
    4
    See also Gottardy v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1493 C.D.
    2014, filed February 20, 2015) (affirming the Board’s denial of reconsideration where the claimant
    failed to brief the abuse of discretion issue).
    4
    Board must consider whether the party requesting reconsideration has presented new
    evidence or changed circumstances or whether [the Board] failed to consider
    relevant law.” Ensle v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    740 A.2d 775
    , 779 (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 1999); see Laster v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    80 A.3d 831
    ,
    834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
    Furthermore, where a reconsideration request does not allege a change of
    circumstance, seek to introduce new evidence unavailable at the time of the hearing,
    or articulate a legal theory that the Board did not consider in its initial decision, but
    rather “merely reargue[s] its case before the [Board] . . . [there] is not ‘good cause’
    for granting reconsideration.” Id.; see Bushofsky v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of
    Review, 
    626 A.2d 687
    , 690 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (recognizing that reconsideration is
    properly denied where the claimant seeks to introduce “the evidence already
    offered”).
    Here, Claimant’s request for reconsideration did not allege a change of
    circumstance, seek to present new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the
    hearing, or articulate any legal theory that the Board did not consider in its initial
    decision. See R. Item No. 13. Rather, Claimant merely attempted to reargue the
    same legal position she had initially argued to the Board in her Petition for Appeal.
    See id.; see also R. Item No. 11.5 Consistent with this Court’s precedent and the
    Board’s regulations, we conclude that Claimant’s Request for Reconsideration did
    not establish good cause justifying the grant of reconsideration.
    5
    In her Request for Reconsideration, as in her Petition for Appeal, Claimant asserted that
    under Genetin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
    451 A.2d 1353
    (Pa. 1982), her
    former employer was required to provide her suitable work and failed to do so. See R. Item Nos.
    11, 13.
    5
    Conclusion
    Because Claimant has waived the only reviewable issue before this Court, we
    conclude that the Board’s right to relief is clear. Accordingly, we grant the Board’s
    Application for Summary Relief and affirm the Board’s November 8, 2017 Order.6
    __________________________________
    ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
    6
    We note that even if the Board had not filed an Application for Summary Relief, we still
    would have affirmed the November 8, 2017 Order for the same reason as above – because Claimant
    failed to argue that the Board abused its discretion in denying reconsideration.
    6
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Madeline F. Russo,                :
    Petitioner      :
    :
    v.                          : No. 1676 C.D. 2017
    :
    Unemployment Compensation         :
    Board of Review,                  :
    Respondent       :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2019, we hereby GRANT the
    Application for Summary Relief filed by the Unemployment Compensation Board
    of Review (Board) and AFFIRM the Board’s November 8, 2017 Order.
    __________________________________
    ELLEN CEISLER, Judge