Opinion
No. 618 C.D. 2012
10-01-2012
Rita J. Deklinski, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
Rita J. Deklinski (Claimant) petitions for review of the March 21, 2012, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR), which affirmed the decision of a referee to deny Claimant's request for a waiver of repayment of emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) benefits under section 4005(b) of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 (Act). On February 23, 2012, we vacated the UCBR's prior order and remanded the matter for findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of whether repayment of the EUC overpayment amount would cause Claimant financial hardship. On remand, the UCBR issued new findings of fact and conclusions of law and determined that repayment would not cause Claimant financial hardship. We now affirm.
Title IV of the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 2008, P.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2353, Section 4005(b), 26 U.S.C. §3304 Note.
See Deklinski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 37 A.3d 1262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
Claimant filed an application for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits effective January 4, 2009. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, No. 1.) The Department of Labor and Industry (Department) created a record for EUC benefits on January 3, 2010. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, No. 2.) Claimant was eligible for regular UC benefits under a new application effective January 3, 2010. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, No. 3.) However, Claimant received both regular UC and EUC benefits for the weeks ending January 9, 2010, through February 20, 2010. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, No. 4.) As a result of the duplicate payments, Claimant received $2,478 in EUC benefits to which she was not entitled. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, No. 5.)
Claimant earns approximately $2,860 per month at her current job. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, No. 6.) Claimant and her husband have a mortgage payment of $700 per month. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, No. 7.) Claimant and her husband have credit card balances but no outstanding loans or bills other than the mortgage. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, No. 8.)
Based on these findings, the UCBR concluded that Claimant failed to establish that repayment of the EUC overpayment would cause her extraordinary financial hardship. Thus, the UCBR affirmed the referee's denial of Claimant's waiver request. Claimant now petitions for review of that decision.
Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Rock v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 A.3d 646, 648 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
On appeal, Claimant argues that the UCBR erred in concluding that Claimant would not suffer financial hardship if she were required to repay the overpayment amount. We disagree.
Section 4005(b) of the Act provides:
In the case of individuals who have received amounts of [EUC] under this title to which they were not entitled, the State shall require such individuals to repay the amounts of such [EUC] to the State agency, except that the State agency may waive such repayment if it determines that -26 U.S.C. §3304 Note. The only element at issue here is whether repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience. As we noted in our prior opinion, financial hardship is a proper basis for a waiver request. See Deklinski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 37 A.3d 1262, 1264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
(1) the payment of such [EUC] was without fault on the part of any such individual; and
(2) such repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience.
Despite the UCBR's finding that Claimant received a non-fault overpayment, (UCBR's Decision & Order at 3), Claimant devotes a considerable portion of her brief to arguing that ordering her to repay the money would be unfair because she received the money due to the Department's oversight and through no fault of her own. Because it is undisputed that Claimant's overpayment was non-fault, and thus she has satisfied the first element of a waiver claim, we need not address this argument.
In her brief, Claimant argues that repayment of the duplicate EUC payments "would put an unbearable strain on the budget or her family and cause them irreparable hardship." (Claimant's Br. at 10.) The record, however, does not support this claim. At the hearing, Claimant's only testimony on the issue of financial hardship was that her job is seasonal and she works just six months of the year. (N.T., 5/2/11, at 9.) Claimant's husband, who is also Claimant's employer, then testified to Claimant's salary and to the couple's shared household expenses. (Id. at 12-15.) Claimant's husband further testified that he and Claimant have credit card balances but no outstanding debts other than their $700-per-month mortgage. (Id. at 14.) Neither Claimant nor her husband offered any testimony as to how repaying the $2,478 overpayment would "irreparably" burden them. To the contrary, the UCBR determined that Claimant's financial evidence did not support such a finding. Therefore, we agree with the UCBR that Claimant failed to establish that repayment of the EUC overpayment would cause her financial hardship.
Claimant testified that she is a sales associate at her husband's swimming pool store and that she typically works from April through October. (N.T., 5/2/11, at 8-9.)
Claimant also takes issue with the UCBR's use of the term "extraordinary" in addressing her financial hardship claim. However, even if the UCBR mischaracterized the standard, we find this error to be harmless because Claimant failed to prove any financial hardship, extraordinary or otherwise. --------
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2012, we hereby affirm the March 21, 2012, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge