M.F. Carney v. UCBR , 181 A.3d 1286 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Michael F. Carney,                           :
    Petitioner      :
    :
    v.                            :   No. 623 C.D. 2017
    :   Submitted: November 3, 2017
    Unemployment Compensation                    :
    Board of Review,                             :
    Respondent               :
    BEFORE:        HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
    HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
    HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY JUDGE SIMPSON                             FILED: January 19, 2018
    Michael F. Carney (Claimant), representing himself, petitions for
    review from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
    (Board). The Board affirmed a referee’s decision dismissing Claimant’s appeal from
    a determination of a local service unit of the Department of Labor and Industry
    (Department). The Board found Claimant’s appeal was untimely under Section
    501(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law1 (Law). Claimant argues his
    untimeliness should be excused because he did not see the appeal deadline on the
    notice of determination when he first read it, and he was excusably distracted
    because he recently became a father and started his own business. Upon review, we
    affirm.
    1
    Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S.
    §821(e).
    I. Background
    On November 10, 2016, the Department issued a notice of
    determination disqualifying Claimant from unemployment compensation (UC)
    benefits, finding a fault overpayment, and imposing penalties. Claimant does not
    dispute that he received the notice of determination.
    The determination stated in multiple places that Claimant’s final day to
    appeal the determination to the Board was November 28, 2016. However, Claimant
    did not mail his appeal until December 1, 2016.
    A referee conducted a hearing limited to the issue of timeliness of
    Claimant’s appeal. Claimant testified at the hearing. He explained he failed to see
    the appeal deadline on the determination when he first read it. He also stated he
    recently became a father and was in the process of starting a business during the
    appeal period. The referee dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely under Section
    501(e) of the Law.
    Claimant appealed the dismissal to the Board. Although sympathetic,
    the Board found Claimant’s explanation for his late appeal did not meet the criteria
    for an exception to the 15-day appeal period imposed by Section 501(e).
    Consequently, the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits of
    the case.
    Claimant then filed a petition for review in this Court.
    2
    II. Issue
    Claimant argues the Board erred in refusing to excuse the untimeliness
    of his appeal from the Department’s determination. He contends he offered a
    reasonable explanation for his lateness.
    III. Discussion
    On appeal,2 Claimant offers the same explanation he presented to the
    referee and the Board, i.e., he failed to note the appeal deadline, and he was
    distracted by the birth of his child and the demands of starting a business. Both the
    referee and the Board found this explanation insufficient to provide an exception to
    the appeal deadline. We agree.
    Failure to file a timely appeal as required by Section 501(e) of the Law
    is a jurisdictional defect. Russo v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    13 A.3d 1000
     (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). The time limit for a statutory appeal is mandatory; it may
    not be extended as a matter of grace or indulgence. 
    Id.
     To justify an exception to
    the appeal deadline, Claimant must demonstrate that his delay resulted from
    extraordinary circumstances involving fraud, a breakdown in the administrative
    process, or non-negligent circumstances relating to Claimant himself. See 
    id.
     This
    is an extremely heavy burden. Blast Intermediate Unit No. 17 v. Unemployment
    Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    645 A.2d 447
     (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994); Reed v. Unemployment
    Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    406 A.2d 852
     (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
    2
    Our review is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact were
    supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether
    constitutional rights were violated. Johns v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    87 A.3d 1006
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
    3
    Claimant does not allege any fraud or breakdown in the administrative
    process.   Rather, he contends his personal circumstances made his lateness
    excusable. We construe this contention as arguing non-negligent circumstances.
    Unfortunately, Claimant’s argument is without merit.
    A claimant’s failure to notice the appeal deadline in a UC determination
    does not constitute a non-negligent circumstance justifying an untimely appeal.
    Reed; Delaney v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 
    368 A.2d 1351
     (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 1977). Thus, Claimant’s explanation that he failed to notice the appeal
    deadline in the determination he received from the Department is legally insufficient
    to excuse his failure to file a timely appeal.
    The pressure of life events is likewise insufficient to excuse an untimely
    appeal. This Court consistently rejects such excuses. See, e.g., Constantini v.
    Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review 
    173 A.3d 838
     (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), (claimant
    dealing with several ongoing legal issues, repairing and securing home computer
    network after a malware virus attack, recovering data information lost from wireless
    devices due to the virus, and medical emergency appointments during the time
    period prior to the appeal deadline); Maloy v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
    (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1009 C.D. 2015, filed April 13, 2016), 
    2016 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 271
     (unreported) (claimant dealing with brother’s death, moving, and caring
    for daughter and sick mother); Burgher v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review (Pa.
    Cmwlth., No. 1929 C.D. 2014, filed July 7, 2015), 
    2015 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 461
     (unreported) (claimant dealing with anxiety and stress from layoff); Rabe v.
    Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1785 C.D. 2013, filed
    4
    February 24, 2014), 
    2014 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 115
     (unreported) (claimant
    dealing with financial stress and multiple pending court cases); Menges v.
    Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2230 C.D. 2009, filed April
    22, 2010), 
    2010 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 254
     (unreported) (claimant dealing
    with a death in the family and lingering effects of a medical condition). We cite
    these decisions as persuasive. See 
    210 Pa. Code §69.414
    (a).
    Therefore, we conclude Claimant’s asserted stress and distraction from
    the birth of a child and starting a business legally insufficient to excuse his untimely
    appeal.
    IV. Conclusion
    Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Board’s dismissal of Claimant’s
    appeal.
    ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
    5
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Michael F. Carney,                   :
    Petitioner     :
    :
    v.                       :   No. 623 C.D. 2017
    :
    Unemployment Compensation            :
    Board of Review,                     :
    Respondent       :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2018, the order of the
    Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.
    ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 623 C.D. 2017

Citation Numbers: 181 A.3d 1286

Judges: Simpson, J.

Filed Date: 1/19/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023