I. Jacobs v. UCBR

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Isaiah Jacobs, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, : No. 459 C.D. 2022
Respondent : Submitted: March 31, 2023
BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY FILED: July 14, 2023
Isaiah Jacobs (Claimant), pro se, petitions this Court for review of the
Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) March 15, 2022
order dismissing his appeal as untimely, and March 25, 2022 order denying his
request for reconsideration. The sole issue before this Court is whether the UCBR
properly dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely.1 After review, this Court affirms.
1
In his Statement of Questions Involved, Claimant presented four issues:
1. Why is there no way to argue that I did not quit my job
voluntarily? The [UCBR] dismissed my appeal as untimely and also
denied reconsideration without reasoning.
2. Why did the [UCBR] dismiss my reconsideration request without
any explanation? The [UCBR] did not answer my question.
3. Why did the [UCBR] side with the employer (Veteran
[T]ransportation [X Press]) when they never submitted any facts that
back there [sic] claim I was terminated [sic] for misconduct or
attended any referee hearings? The [UCBR] dismissed my claim as
a voluntary quit.
Veteran’s Transportation X Press (Employer) employed Claimant as a
full-time package delivery driver from August 18, 2020 to October 25, 2020. On
November 15, 2020, Claimant filed an application for UC benefits. On February 16,
2021, the Altoona UC Service Center found Claimant ineligible for UC benefits
under Section 402(b) of the UC Law (Law).2 Claimant appealed from the UC
Service Center’s determination and a Referee held a hearing. On April 27, 2021, the
Referee affirmed the UC Service Center’s determination. On May 20, 2021,
Claimant appealed to the UCBR.
On July 19, 2021, the UCBR notified Claimant that the Law deems an
appeal timely if it is filed within 15 days after the Referee’s decision was mailed,
and if Claimant believed that he filed his appeal within the 15-day period or that it
should be deemed timely for other reasons, he must request a hearing to allow him
to set forth his reasons why he believes his appeal was timely filed. On July 21,
2021, Claimant requested a hearing. On February 10, 2022, a Referee held a hearing.
On March 15, 2022, the UCBR dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely. Claimant
appealed to this Court.3
4. Why is my [d]epression not being treated not [sic] as a mental
illness and or my request for part[-]time hours not considered as
trying to retain employment. The [UCBR] did not answer my
question.
Claimant Br. at 5. Because the UCBR dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely, it did not address
the above-quoted issues and therefore the issues are not properly before this Court for review.
2
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §
802(b) (referring to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling
nature).
3
“‘Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were
violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported
by substantial evidence.’ Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev[.], 83 A.3d 484, 486 n.2 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2014).” Talty v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 197 A.3d 842, 843 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2018).
2
Initially,
Section 502 of the Law gives a party “[15] days after the
date of a [Referee’s] decision” to appeal, 43 P.S. § 822,
and this deadline is strictly applied. This Court holds
routinely that “failure to file an appeal within [15] days,
without an adequate excuse for the late filing, mandates
dismissal of the appeal.” [U.S.] Postal Serv[.] v.
Unemployment Comp[.] [Bd.]of Rev[.], . . . 620 A.2d 572,
573 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1993). Nevertheless, our Supreme
Court has held that a breakdown in the administrative
process is an adequate excuse for an untimely filing.
Carson Helicopters, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 960 A.2d 524, 527
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
If an appeal is not filed within [15] days of the
determination’s mailing date, the UCBR and its referees
do not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case.
The statutory time limit for filing an appeal is mandatory
in the absence of fraud or manifestly wrong or negligent
conduct of the administrative authorities, and the claimant
bears a heavy burden to justify an untimely appeal.
Roman-Hutchinson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 972 A.2d 1286, 1288 n.1
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citation omitted).
Here, Claimant testified at the Referee hearing that he did not timely
appeal because he received two Referee decisions on the same date, one which stated
that he was eligible for UC benefits and one which stated that he was ineligible for
UC benefits. See Certified Record (C.R.) at 119. He further related that as soon as
he contacted a UC representative, he filed his appeal.4 See C.R. at 121. When
4
Claimant states in his brief that he “[w]as advised by a[] [UC] employee to wait for a call
back to see why [he] was receiving payment with two different decisions.” Claimant Br. at 6.
However, upon review of the Referee hearing transcript, Claimant did not make such a statement
or any similar statement at the Referee hearing. “It is well settled that this Court may not consider
extra-record evidence that is not part of the certified record on appeal.” Brown v. Unemployment
Comp. Bd. of Rev., 276 A.3d 322, 331 n.13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). Accordingly, this Court cannot
consider Claimant’s only allegation about an administrative breakdown which is contained in his
brief, i.e., someone told him to wait and see, because it is not in the record.
3
questioned by the Referee, Claimant reported that he had two separate Referee
hearings. See C.R. at 120. Given the fact that Claimant had two different Referee
hearings, it was reasonable for him to receive two different decisions.
Claimant does not demonstrate how receiving two
[Referee decisions] . . . - one which found him eligible for
benefits and one which found him ineligible - amounts to
an administrative breakdown. Because he admits that
he received the [decision] finding him ineligible for
benefits under Section 402([b]) of the Law, Claimant was
not misled by the [UC] Service Center, but only by his own
failure to read all documents sent to him.
Marttila v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 2185 C.D. 2011,
filed May 31, 2012), slip op. at 5 (emphasis added).5 Consequently, Claimant has
not met his “heavy burden to justify an untimely appeal.” Roman-Hutchinson, 972
A.2d at 1288 n.1. Accordingly, the UCBR properly dismissed Claimant’s appeal as
untimely.6
For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s orders are affirmed.
_________________________________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
5
This Court’s memorandum opinions may only be cited “for [their] persuasive value, but
not as binding precedent.” Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal Operating
Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). This Court cites Marttila for its persuasive value.
6
Because the UCBR properly dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely, the UCBR did not
err by denying Claimant’s reconsideration request.
4
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Isaiah Jacobs, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, : No. 459 C.D. 2022
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2023, the Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review’s March 15, 2022 and March 25, 2022 orders are
affirmed.
_________________________________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge