Opinion
Argued: March 4, 1982
May 4, 1982.
Unemployment compensation — Advising of rights — Remand — Questions belatedly raised.
1. An unemployment compensation case must be remanded for a new hearing when the unrepresented claimant was not advised by the referee of her right to counsel, to present witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses, and such remand is not foreclosed by the fact that this deficiency was not pointed out until appellate briefs were filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. [333]
Argued: March 4, 1982, before President Judge CRUMLISH and Judges ROGERS and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 206 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Helen Felici, No. B-179154.
Application with the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Overpayment recoupment ordered. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Orders affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Order vacated. Case remanded.
Gilbert J. Scutti, Marroletti, Dickstein Scutti, for petitioner.
Charles Hasson, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles Donahue, Associate Counsel, and Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Helen Felici appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, upholding a referee's denial of benefits as a voluntary quit and the referee's determination that she had received a no-fault overpayment in the amount of $111.00.
We vacate the order below and remand the record for a new hearing because the referee did not inform the appellant, unrepresented below, of her right to have counsel, to present witnesses in her own behalf and to cross-examine adverse witnesses, as we have recently held must be done. Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commw. 427, 430 A.2d 354 (1981).
The Board contends that we should not reach the irregularity just described because it was raised for the first time in the claimant's brief filed in this court. In Peda v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 Pa. Commw. 184, 439 A.2d 888 (1982), we held that this question may be raised for the first time at oral argument in this court and despite the absence of any mention of the question in the claimant's brief.
Order vacated; record remanded for a new hearing.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 1982, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned case is vacated and the record remanded for a new hearing.
This decision was reached prior to the resignation of Judge MENCER.