Opinion
No. 478 C.D. 2012 No. 479 C.D. 2012
03-12-2013
Angela M. Cook, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER
Angela M. Cook (Claimant) petitions for review from two Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that affirmed, as modified, two Unemployment Compensation Referee's (Referee) decisions finding Claimant eligible for Unemployment Compensation (UC) and Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) benefits based, in part, on Notices of Financial Determination (Financial Determinations) indicating that Claimant earned $3,633.75 from Friends of the Railroad Museum (Employer) during the four quarters of 2009, her base year., On appeal, Claimant argues that the Board erred in affirming the Financial Determinations because the Board found that Claimant's total earnings from Employer in 2009 were $4,942.75. Claimant contends that because the Board's legal conclusion that it could not modify the Financial Determinations is inconsistent with its findings of fact and represents an overly technical interpretation of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), the Board's Orders should be reversed and the matter remanded for the recalculation of her benefits based on the corrected base year earnings. Because we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the Board erred in not modifying the Financial Determinations, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for recalculation of Claimant's benefits.
The Board modified Claimant's weekly benefit rate from $82.00 to $147.00. (Board Op. at 2-3.)
EUC benefits are available through the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008, 26 U.S.C. § 3304.
Claimant worked for multiple employers during her base year.
Section 4(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 753(a), defines base year as "the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the first day of an individual's benefit year." 43 P.S. § 753(a). A "benefit year" is:
the fifty-two consecutive week period beginning with the day as of which such "Valid Application for Benefits" is filed, and thereafter the fifty-two consecutive week period beginning with the day as of which such individual next files a "Valid Application for Benefits" after the termination of his last preceding benefit year.Section 4(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 753(b).
This Court consolidated Claimant's two petitions for review.
Claimant further asserts that the Board abused its discretion in not remanding the matter for a hearing for her to present evidence that the missing wages reflected in the 2009 W-2 were earned during the second quarter of 2009.
Claimant applied for UC benefits on June 27, 2010. Based on this application date, Claimant's base year is the four quarters of 2009. On July 13, 2010, the Department of Labor and Industry (Department) mailed the first Financial Determination to Claimant identifying two employers and indicating that Claimant's 2009 earnings from Employer were $3,633.75 and that she had no earnings from Employer in the second quarter of 2009. (July 13, 2010 Financial Determination at 1.) Claimant did not appeal this Financial Determination. The Department sent Claimant a Revised Notice of Financial Determination on July 16, 2010 (First Revised Financial Determination) identifying three employers and, again, showing that Claimant had no earnings from Employer in the second quarter of 2009. Claimant did not appeal the First Revised Financial Determination. On April 25, 2011, a EUC claim was established. The Department determined, on August 11, 2011, that Claimant had reasonable assurance of returning to work for one of her employers and issued another Revised Notice of Financial Determination (Second Revised Financial Determination) removing those wages from Claimant's base year for her June 27, 2010 application. Claimant appealed the Department's reasonable assurances determination, and a Referee remanded that determination to the Department on or about September 15, 2011. Thereafter, on September 28, 2011, the Department sent Claimant a Revised Notice of Financial Determination for EUC benefits (Third Revised Financial Determination), which found Claimant eligible for weekly benefits of $147.00 based on her June 27, 2010 application and showed no earnings from Employer in the second quarter of 2009. Claimant appealed the Third Revised Financial Determination, asserting that there were wages missing from her work with Employer. (Findings of Fact (FOF) ¶¶ 1-10.)
The Board issued two opinions and Orders in this matter, one for Claimant's UC claim and one for Claimant's EUC claim. The findings of fact are identical in both opinions and, with the exception that the opinion addressing Claimant's EUC claim specifically references EUC benefits, the rationales are the same.
Claimant's appeal was assigned to the Referee, who held a hearing at which Claimant and a Department representative testified. Claimant presented her 2009 W-2 from Employer, which indicated that her total earnings for 2009 were $4,942.75, and agreed that, to the best of her knowledge, this information was true and correct. (Hr'g Tr. at 12.) The Referee requested the Department representative's testimony at the hearing "because of the somewhat complicated procedural history of this case." (Hr'g Tr. at 1.) The Department representative explained that it is the employer who reports an employee's quarterly wages to the Department's field office and that, based on Claimant's W-2, it appeared that Employer had not properly reported Claimant's 2009 wages. (Hr'g Tr. at 6-7.) The Department representative further indicated that, to the extent that the Financial Determinations were inconsistent with the W-2, the Determinations were erroneous. (Hr'g Tr. at 8.) The Department representative agreed that, if the missing wages from Employer were included, the Department would have to revise the Financial Determinations and Claimant's weekly benefit would increase. (Hr'g Tr. at 11-12.) However, the Department representative believed that, because Claimant did not appeal the initial Financial Determinations from July 2010, any challenges to Claimant's wages were waived. (Hr'g Tr. at 5, 9-10.)
Although representatives from one of Claimant's employers appeared at the hearing, they offered no testimony and asked no questions.
The Referee concluded that, while there was no question that there were wages missing from Claimant's Financial Determinations, Claimant's failure to appeal the July 2010 Financial Determinations precluded her from challenging those numbers. Therefore, in two separate decisions and orders, the Referee affirmed the Financial Determinations' report of Claimant's wages in the amount of $3,633.75 and found Claimant eligible for a weekly benefit of $82.00 for both the EUC and UC claims. Claimant appealed both decisions to the Board.
Citing Section 501(e) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 821(e), which allows an appeal from a financial determination "'with respect to the particular facts set forth in such notice,'" the Board disagreed with the Referee that Claimant could not challenge the accuracy of her wages with Employer because those alleged inaccuracies were present in the Third Revised Financial Determination. (Board Ops. at 3 (quoting Section 501(e) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 821(e)).) Hence, the Board considered "whether the Financial Determination[s] should be revised." (Board Ops. at 3.) The Board characterized Claimant's argument as asserting that the difference between the amounts in the Financial Determinations and Claimant's W-2 were the missing wages from the second quarter of 2009, which should be added into Claimant's base year earnings. Although the Board found that Claimant "had total earnings from [Employer] in 2009 of $4,942.75," (FOF ¶ 11), the Board noted that the W-2 did not identify Claimant's wages by quarter and Claimant did not testify about what she earned in the second quarter of 2009. The Board concluded that "[it] cannot just assume that the total wages minus those reported on the Financial Determination[s] automatically equals the second quarter earnings" and, therefore, Claimant did not prove what she earned in the second quarter of 2009. Accordingly, the Board, in two opinions separately addressing Claimant EUC and UC claims, held that it could not modify the underlying Financial Determinations. (Board Ops. at 3.) The Board also denied Claimant's request for reconsideration and/or remand to present evidence to show that the additional wages identified in the W-2 were from the second quarter of 2009. Claimant now petitions this Court for review.
"The Court's review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, whether a practice or procedure of the Board was not followed or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record." Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 913 A.2d 331, 334 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
Claimant argues that she established that her earnings from Employer in her base year, 2009, were higher than those indicated in the Financial Determinations, a fact the Board recognized in Finding of Fact 11; therefore, the Financial Determinations should be modified. Claimant contends that the Board's conclusion that it could not modify the Financial Determinations is inconsistent with the Board's finding that Claimant's earnings from Employer in 2009 exceeded the amount reflected in the Financial Determinations. According to Claimant, the Board applied an "overly technical, restrictive reading to [the] procedural rules, particularly" given the remedial nature of the Law. (Claimant's Br. at 14-15 (quoting Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 505 Pa. 8, 13, 476 A.2d 364, 366 (1984)).) Such a narrow reading, Claimant asserts, is in contravention to our Supreme Court's statements that "[i]t is clear that this [Law] is remedial in nature and 'its benefits and objectives shall not be frittered away by slavish adherence to technical and artificial rules,'" Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Jolliffe, 474 Pa. 584, 586, 379 A.2d 109, 109-10 (1977) (quoting Glen Alden Coal Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 51 A.2d 518, 520 (Pa. Super. 1947)), and that the "Law must be liberally construed to provide the broadest possible benefits to those who experience[] forced unemployment," Renne v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 299, 305 n.4, 453 A.2d 318, 321 n.4 (1982).
In response the Board asserts that, in order to calculate a claimant's entitlement to UC benefits, it must know "what the claimant's earnings were per calendar quarter," Claimant's "W-2 [did] not break down Claimant's earnings per calendar quarter," and Claimant presented no other evidence or testimony to establish the amount of her 2009 second quarter earnings. (Board's Br. at 9 (emphasis in original).) The Board reiterates its rationale from its Opinion that it could not assume that the difference between the earnings in the Financial Determinations and the earnings from the W-2 were wages from the second quarter of 2009. Therefore, the Board argues, Claimant did not meet her burden of proving that she was entitled to a different rate of UC benefits. The Board further argues that it did not find in Finding of Fact 11 "that the [F]inancial [D]eterminations were factually inaccurate or that wages were missing from them"; rather, the Board asserts, that finding of fact "merely reflects the total wages found on the W-2." (Board's Br. at 9 n.7.)
Claimant bears the burden of establishing her financial eligibility for UC benefits. Pagliei v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 37 A.3d 24, 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). "To be eligible for benefits during a 'benefit year' (52 weeks following a valid application for benefits), a claimant must have sufficient wages in covered employment during the 'base year' (first four of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the first day of an individual's benefit year)." Dorn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 866 A.2d 497, 501 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). There is no dispute that Claimant is eligible for UC and EUC benefits. Rather, the question before this Court is whether Claimant established that her benefit rate is based on an inaccurate calculation of her base year earnings. As noted, Claimant's base year is the four quarters of 2009.
The Board's position that it can only determine the accuracy of the Financial Determinations for Claimant's base year if Claimant can identify her specific wages for each quarter of 2009 does not recognize the reality that Claimant's base year is wholly contained within one tax year, 2009, for which Employer issued a W-2 that reflects higher wages than those Employer reported to the Department. Although the Board asserts that it did not find that the Financial Determinations were inaccurate or were missing wages, the Board specifically found that Claimant's 2009 total earnings from Employer were $4,942.75, (FOF ¶ 11). In contrast to this finding, the Financial Determinations identified Claimant's 2009 earnings from Employer as $3,633.75, and the Department representative acknowledged that, based on Claimant's W-2, the Financial Determinations were missing wages and were erroneous. (Hr'g Tr. at 8, 11-12.) Despite having evidence and finding that Claimant's 2009 base year earnings were $4,942.75, the Board held that it could not modify the Financial Determinations. However, "[t]he Board's duty is to examine the evidence, to make findings of fact based upon the evidence, and to arrive at conclusions based upon those facts." Department of the Navy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 632 A.2d 622, 624 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). In other words, the Board's conclusions of law must be supported by the Board's factual findings. Because Claimant's base year was calendar year 2009, the Board's conclusion here, that it could not modify the Financial Determinations to alter the 2009 base year earnings of $3,633.75, is inconsistent with the Board's finding that Claimant's base year earnings were actually $4,942.75 as set forth in her W-2 and, therefore, is erroneous. Id.
Thus, this is not a situation where the base year in question is split between tax years, such as where a base year consists of the last two quarters of one year and the first two quarters of the next year. Under those circumstances, the claimant necessarily must show what wages were earned in each quarter. As the Board noted, a W-2 does not identify in which quarter an employee's wages were earned and would be of little assistance in such a situation.
This situation is not dissimilar from Dorn. In Dorn, the claimant, who initially was found to be eligible for UC benefits and was paid benefits, subsequently was determined to be ineligible based on a quarterly wage report his employer provided the Department and was advised that he had received a non-fault overpayment. Dorn, 866 A.2d at 498. The claimant appealed that determination, asserting that the wage report his employer submitted to the Department was erroneous. Id. at 499. At a Referee's hearing, the claimant introduced a document reflecting his employer's breakdown of his earnings, which reflected an error in the report the employer had sent to the Department. Id. After the Board upheld the Referee's determination that a non-fault overpayment had occurred, the claimant appealed to this Court. Id. We ultimately vacated that order and remanded the matter to the Board because, inter alia, despite the claimant "continually assert[ing] the existence of an error in his initial wage records" and presenting evidence before the Referee of the corrected wage records the claimant had received from his employer, the Board failed to consider that evidence, "which clearly impacts [the c]laimant's eligibility." Id. at 501. Thus, we remanded the matter to the Board "for consideration of [the c]laimant's corrected wage information." Id. at 502. Here, as in Dorn, Claimant repeatedly has asserted that her initial wage records from Employer were erroneous and presented evidence of her correct wages for 2009, her base year, before the Referee. While the Board here made a factual finding based on Claimant's corrected wages, it did not consider the legal effect of those corrected wages. Accordingly, as in Dorn, we will remand this matter to the Board to recalculate Claimant's weekly benefits rates based on Claimant's corrected wage information.
Accordingly, the Board's Orders are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and this matter is remanded for the recalculation of Claimant's weekly benefit rate based on Claimant's corrected wage information for 2009.
Because of our disposition, we need not address Claimant's alternative argument that the Board abused its discretion in not remanding this matter for her to present evidence to establish that the missing wages reflected in the 2009 W-2 were earned in the second quarter. --------
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge ORDER
NOW, March 12, 2013, the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) in the above-captioned matters are hereby AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and these matters are REMANDED to the Board for the recalculation of Angela M. Cook's weekly benefit rate in accordance with the foregoing opinion.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge