V. Sokolovsky v. UCBR

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Viktoria Sokolovsky, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1337 C.D. 2023
:
Unemployment Compensation : Submitted: October 8, 2024
Board of Review, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: November 19, 2024
Viktoria Sokolovsky (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s (Board) October 2, 2023 order
affirming a referee decision assessing against Claimant a $7,658 Unemployment
Compensation (UC) benefit overpayment for the weeks ending August 22, 2020,
through November 28, 2020. Claimant raises a single issue before this Court: whether
Claimant is eligible for the benefits she received which she must now repay because
they are subject to the Board’s determination that she received a non-fault
overpayment. After review, we affirm the decision of the Board.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Claimant was briefly employed by Amcord Care. She spent two days at
the company in training before she quit her job. (Certified Record (C.R.) at 037.) Her
last day of work was August 19, 2020. (Finding of Fact (FOF) 1. Referee Decision #
20-09-H-6327, mailed 02/08/2021.) Shortly thereafter, Claimant filed an application
for UC benefits effective July 26, 2020. (C.R. at 012.) The Pennsylvania Department
of Labor and Industry, UC Service Center (Department), initially found Claimant was
not ineligible for benefits pursuant Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation
Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b),1 and paid Claimant benefits in the amount of $342 per week.
(C.R. at 012.) However, following a hearing on February 8, 2021, the Referee
determined that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law
because she failed to establish a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving her
employment. (C.R. at 037-038.) Claimant appealed the Referee’s decision2 to the
Board. On April 29, 2021, the Board affirmed the Referee’s decision. (C.R. at 034.)
Claimant did not appeal the Board’s decision to this Court within 30 days.
Consequently, the Board’s decision became final.3
On February 22, 2021, the Department determined that Claimant had a
non-fault overpayment of $ 7,658 (C.R. at 011, 018-021.) On November 16, 2022,
Claimant appealed from the Department’s non-fault overpayment determination. (C.R.
at 030.) On March 16, 2023, the Referee affirmed the Department’s determination.
(C.R. at 145-48.) Claimant then appealed the Referee’s decision to the Board (C.R. at
154-162), which issued an order affirming the Referee’s decision on October 2, 2023.
(C.R. at 180-81.) Claimant now appeals the Board’s October 2, 2023 decision to this
Court.
II. Analysis
This Court reviews the Board’s orders to determine whether (a) substantial
evidence supports the Board’s findings of fact, (b) the Board violated a claimant’s
1
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b).
2
The decision was docketed at Appeal No. 20-09-H-6327. (C.R. at 037.)
3
See Pa.R.A.P. 1512(a)(1).
2
constitutional rights, (c) the Board violated agency practice and procedure, or (d) the
Board committed an error of law. See 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. Generally, it is beyond our
Court’s scope of review to address questions, other than the validity of a statute, not
raised before the Board. See 2 Pa.C.S. § 703(a). In addition, the law is well established
that “the Board is the ultimate fact-finder in unemployment compensation matters and
is empowered to resolve all conflicts in evidence, witness credibility, and weight
accorded the evidence. . . . . Where substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings,
they are conclusive on appeal.” Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Claimant argues on appeal that she is eligible for UC benefits and that the
Referee and Board determinations from 2021 finding her ineligible for benefits were
incorrectly decided. (Petitioner’s Br. at 7.) However, those decisions are not before
us. Rather, this case is an appeal from the Board’s October 2, 2023 decision4 affirming
the Referee’s decision of March 16, 2023. Therefore, the issue currently before this
Court is whether the Board erred when it affirmed the Referee’s decision regarding the
non-fault overpayment. Claimant makes no arguments with respect to this issue.
Claimant failed to appeal the Board’s previous 2021 decision finding her
ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law. However, she cannot use this
appeal to collaterally attack the previous determination of the Board. Section 509 of
the Law states that any fact or matter in issue in a final decision of a referee, the Board,
or the Court, is “conclusive for all purposes . . . and shall not be subject to collateral
attack.” 43 P.S. § 829. Claimant has not raised any issues before this Court that have
not already been finally decided because the Board’s decision relating to Claimant’s
4
Decision Dkt. No. 2023002059-BR.
3
ineligibility for benefits has long been final.5 Therefore, this Court is precluded from
reviewing that decision.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the decision of the Board.
_________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
5
The Board affirmed the determination of the UC Referee on April 29, 2021, finding Claimant
ineligible under Section 402(b) of the Law. (C.R. at 034.) As noted above, Claimant did not appeal
the Board’s decision to this Court.
4
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Viktoria Sokolovsky, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No.1337 C.D. 2023
:
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2024, the October 2, 2023
Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby AFFIRMED.
________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge