Opinion
No. 1057 C.D. 2013
12-20-2013
Dwayne Lee Cloma, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT
Dwayne Lee Cloma (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying his claim for unemployment compensation. In doing so, the Board affirmed the decision of the Referee that he was bound by a prior decision of another Referee holding Claimant ineligible. Claimant did not appeal that earlier decision, choosing instead to file a new claim for compensation. We affirm the Board's holding that Claimant's second application was barred as a collateral attack on the first Referee's decision.
On August 28, 2011, Claimant filed for unemployment benefits. Claimant stated in his questionnaire that he left his position with Davis Vision (Employer) on March 7, 2011, for health reasons. Specifically, he claimed that repetitious bending while doing machine work caused a sciatic nerve injury, producing severe pain. When his physician released him to light duty work, he so notified Employer. However, Employer did not offer him a job, and he filed a claim for unemployment benefits.
The UC Service Center found that Claimant was not ineligible under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) because he had a necessitous cause for resigning. However, it denied benefits because he did not sustain his burden under Section 401(d)(1) of the Law to demonstrate that he was able and available for suitable work.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b). It provides that an employee is ineligible for compensation for any week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature...." 43 P.S. §802(b).
It provides that a claimant must also establish that he "[i]s able to work and available for suitable work." 43 P.S. §801(d)(1).
Claimant appealed, and a hearing was conducted on November 8, 2012, which neither Claimant nor Employer attended. Based on the UC Service Center's records, the Referee determined that Claimant established that he was, in fact, available for light duty work. However, because Claimant did not establish that he notified Employer of his health issue prior to leaving employment, the Referee held that he did not establish a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving work. The Referee denied Claimant benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law.
Claimant did not appeal the Referee's November 9, 2012, decision. Instead, Claimant filed a second claim for benefits on December 30, 2012. On February 26, 2013, the UC Service Center found that Claimant was ineligible for benefits because, as previously adjudicated, he quit without informing Employer of his health issue. Again, it denied Claimant benefits. Claimant appealed, and a hearing was held before a Referee.
At the hearing, the Referee asked Claimant why he filed a second claim for benefits on December 30, 2012. Claimant responded that he has not worked since March 2011, and he acknowledged that he did not appeal the November 9, 2012, decision of the Referee. Claimant also testified that he had no good reason for not appearing at the prior Referee hearing. As to the merits of his claim, he stated that he was injured at work and went to the hospital. Because he was not able to return to work, Employer advised him that it would contact his physician and process a medical leave of absence for him. Three weeks later he was terminated. After contacting his union, he believed he would be reinstated. He later received notice that his employee retirement plan was terminated as of October 25, 2012, and that his health benefits terminated October 31, 2012.
Claimant submitted documents relating to his health issues and his ability to return to work.
The Referee denied benefits, holding that the November 9, 2012, decision of the Referee could not be subjected to a collateral attack in a second benefit application. Accordingly, Claimant was held to be ineligible for benefits because he resigned without good cause when he did not inform Employer of his health problems. Claimant appealed to the Board, and the decision was affirmed without further analysis.
Claimant petitioned for this Court's review. Claimant does not challenge the Board's legal conclusion that the November 9, 2012, Referee decision cannot be collaterally attacked. Rather, he asserts that the first Referee's decision established that he was eligible for benefits under Section 401(d)(1) of the Law. However, he did not receive benefits.
Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or whether necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. Shrum v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 690 A.2d 796, 799 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
We begin with a review of the Law. Section 509 provides that if a decision of a UC Service Center or a Referee is not appealed, it cannot be disturbed. Section 509 states, in relevant part, as follows:
Any decision made by the department or any referee or the board shall not be subject to collateral attack as to any application claim or claims covered thereby or otherwise be disturbed, unless appealed from.43 P.S. §829.
Subject to appeal proceedings and judicial review, any right, fact or matter in issue which was directly passed upon or necessarily involved in any decision of a referee or the board or the Court and which has become final shall be conclusive for all purposes of this act and shall not be subject to collateral attack as among all affected parties who had notice of such decision[.]
Section 509 of the Law provides a limited exception when the appeal involves a question of whether the claimant actually performed the services or the remuneration provided constituted wages. This exception is not applicable to the action at issue.
The Referee's November 9, 2012, decision held Claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law, and it became final on November 26, 2012. Section 509 of the Law expressly prohibits the collateral attack which Claimant attempted by filing a second application for benefits. Section 509 of the Law prohibited the Referee from considering his second application.
Claimant's second application involved identical facts. In Chandler v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 580 A.2d 457 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), a claimant was found ineligible to receive benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law and did not file a timely appeal. Four months later, she filed a new application for benefits. We explained that under Section 509 of the Law "'[t]he original determination [was] res judicata with respect to appellant's subsequent claims postulated on the same facts.'" Id. at 459 (quoting Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Ferraro, 348 A.2d 753, 755 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975)).
Claimant argues that he is entitled to benefits because the Referee found him eligible under Section 401(d)(1) of the Law. A claimant who voluntarily leaves his employment for health reasons must establish the existence of those health reasons; that his employer was informed of the health problems; and that the claimant is able for work not inimical to his health. Ridley School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 637 A.2d 749, 752 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). These requirements are set forth in Section 402(b) of the Law, and Claimant did not prove that he satisfied them. That Claimant was found to have satisfied Section 401(d)(1) of the Law, as held in the first Referee decision, is irrelevant.
In his brief, Claimant states that he did not voluntarily quit, but was terminated. However, on Claimant's unemployment compensation questionnaire, he indicated that he voluntarily quit for health reasons. Certified Record Item No. 2. --------
Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.
/s/_________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2013, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated May 14, 2013 is AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge