Opinion
No. 1677 C.D. 2014 No. 1678 C.D. 2014 No. 1679 C.D. 2014 No. 1680 C.D. 2014 No. 1681 C.D. 2014 No. 1682 C.D. 2014 No. 1683 C.D. 2014
07-08-2015
John Hanna, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI
In these consolidated appeals, John Hanna (Claimant) petitions pro se for review of the orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the decisions of a Referee approving partial unemployment compensation (UC) benefits; denying UC and emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) benefits; finding fault overpayments of UC benefits and fraud overpayments of EUC benefits totaling $39,869; and imposing 68 penalty weeks. We affirm.
Section 804(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937), as amended, 43 P.S. §874(a), states in relevant part that "[a]ny person who by reason of his fault has received any sum as compensation under this act to which he was not entitled shall be liable to repay ... a sum equal to the amount received by him...."
Section 4005(a), (b) and (c) of Title IV of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Pub. Law 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323, §4005(a), (b), (c), 26 U.S.C. §3304 Note (EUC Act) provides in pertinent part:
(a) In General.—If an individual knowingly has made, or caused to be made by another, a false statement or representation of a material fact, or knowingly has failed, or caused another to fail, to disclose a material fact, and as a result of such a false statement or representation or of such nondisclosure such individual has received an amount of [EUC benefits] under this title to which such individual is not entitled, such individual—
(1) shall be ineligible for further [EUC benefits] under this title....
(b) Repayment.—In the case of individuals who have received amounts of [EUC benefits] under this title to which they were not entitled, the State shall require such individuals to repay the amounts of such [EUC benefits] to the State agency, except that the State agency may waive such repayment if it determines that—
(1) the payment of such [EUC benefits] was without fault on the part of any such individual; and
(2) such repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience.
(c) Recovery by State Agency.—
(1) In General.—The State agency may recover the amount to be repaid, or any part thereof, by deductions from any [EUC benefits] payable to such individual under this title or from any unemployment compensation [(UC)] payable to such individual....
Section 801(b) of the Law states, in relevant part:
(b) Whoever makes a false statement knowing it to be false, or knowingly fails to disclose a material fact to obtain or increase any compensation or other payment under this act or under an employment security law of any other state or of the Federal Government or of a foreign government, may be disqualified in addition to such week or weeks of improper payments for a penalty period of two weeks and for not more than one additional week for each such week of improper payment.... The penalty weeks herein provided for shall be imposed against any weeks with respect to which the claimant would otherwise be eligible for compensation, under the provisions of this act, which begin within the four year period following the end of the benefit year with respect to which the improper payment or payments occurred.43 P.S. §871(b).
Claimant filed an application for UC benefits with an effective date of February 6, 2011, following his separation from employment with IBM Corp. on February 10, 2011. He established a weekly benefit amount of $427.00 and a partial benefit credit (PBC) of $171.00. In March 2011, Claimant began working part-time as a school van driver for WL Roenigk, Inc. Claimant filed for UC benefits for the weeks ending March 19, 2011, through June 18, 2011, by calling the Pennsylvania Teleclaims System (PAT) every two weeks and when asked, "Did you work?," Claimant responded "No." (N.T. 5/8/14 at 9). As a result of his answers when filing for benefits, there was no deduction in his UC benefits for his part-time gross earnings of $3,338.80 for that period and he collected $424.00 per week for a total of $5,936.00 in UC benefits.
"N.T. 5/8/14" refers to the transcript of the May 8, 2014 hearing before a Referee.
Following the exhaustion of this claim, in August 2011, Claimant filed an application for EUC benefits with an effective date of February 6, 2011. For the claim weeks of August 20, 2011, through February 4, 2012, Claimant reported no earnings when he had $5,325.61 in gross earnings from WL Roenigk, Inc. and received $10,440.00 in benefits.
Claimant filed an application for benefits for the following benefit year, effective February 5, 2012, establishing a weekly benefit of $415.00 and a PBC of $166.00 for a combined amount of $581.00. However, on February 15, 2012, the UC Service Center discovered that Claimant was working part-time and was not reporting his earnings. Claimant spoke with a Service Center representative the following day and the Service Center annotated his claim record that he was advised that he must report wages even if they are under his PBC. (Record Item No. 1 at 16; N.T. 5/8/14 at 12.) When Claimant filed for benefits for the claim weeks ending February 25, 2012, through July 21, 2012, he reported part-time earnings from WL Roenigk, Inc. ranging from $189.45 to $241.68; however, he had actual gross earnings ranging from $251.60 to $314.01 during that period. As a result, Claimant received an additional $1,101 in UC benefits for those weeks.
When Claimant filed for benefits for the weeks ending July 28, 2012, and September 1, 2012, he reported no earnings when he had actual gross earnings from WL Roenigk, Inc. in the amount of $405.00 and $209.70, respectively. For the claim weeks of September 8, 2012, through January 19, 2013, Claimant reported earnings of $3,148.18 while he had actual gross earnings of $5,375.54 and received benefits totaling $7,106.00.
Following the exhaustion of Claimant's February 5, 2012, UC claim, he established an application for EUC benefits effective as of that date. For the claim weeks ending January 26, 2013, through April 6, 2013; April 13, 2013, through June 8, 2013; July 13, 2013, through July 27, 2013; August 31, 2013, through October 5, 2013; and October 19, 2013, Claimant reported earnings of $3,576.76 while he had actual gross earnings of $10,154.48 and received a total of $10,632.00 in EUC benefits.
Claimant filed an application for benefits for the following benefit year, effective February 3, 2013, establishing a weekly benefit rate of $241.00 and a PBC of $73.00 for a combined rate of $314.00. He filed for waiting week credit for the week ending October 26, 2013, and reported earnings of $535.26 for the weeks ending October 26, 2013, through November 16, 2013. Claimant had actual gross earnings totaling $1,379.69 for those weeks and received $583.00 in benefits for each of those weeks.
Claimant also filed for benefits for the weeks ending November 23, 2013, through February 1, 2014. While he had voluntarily quit his employment with WL Roenigk, Inc. on November 18, 2013, to seek other employment, he continued to report part-time earnings from that employer and received $2,368.00 in benefits for those weeks. The Service Center was not aware that Claimant had separated from WL Roenigk, Inc. because he continued to report part-time earnings.
Claimant filed an application for benefits for the following benefit year, effective February 2, 2014, establishing a weekly benefit rate of $163.00 and a PBC of $49.00. He filed a claim for benefits for the weeks ending February 15, 2014, through March 15, 2014, based on his prior employment that he had already voluntarily quit. He received $762.00 in benefits for those weeks.
In April 2014, the Service Center issued a number of determinations regarding Claimant's eligibility for UC and EUC benefits:
• at EUC-14-09-G-2660, the Service Center denied benefits for the claim weeks ending January 26, 2013, through July 27, 2013, August 31, 2013, through October 5, 2013, and October 19, 2013, under Sections 401, 4(u), 401(c), 404(d) of the Law because Claimant was
fully employed, found a fraud overpayment of $9,418.00 under Section 4005 of the EUC Law because he failed to report or underreported his earnings, and imposed a 19-week penalty under Section 801 of the Law;
• at 14-09-G-2661, the Service Center denied benefits for the weeks ending March 19, 2011, through June 18, 2011, under Sections 401, 4(u), 404(d) and 401(c), assessed a fault overpayment of $5,936.00 under Section 804(a), and imposed a 16-week penalty;
• at 14-09-G-2662, the Service Center approved partial benefits for the weeks ending February 25, 2012, through March 31, 2012, April 21, 2012, through June 9, 2012, and July 14, 2012, through July 21, 2012, under Sections 401, 4(u) and 404(d) and denied benefits for the weeks ending July 28, 2012, and September 1, 2012, under Section 401(c), and assessed a fault overpayment of $1,635.00;
• at 14-09-G-2663, the Service Center denied benefits for the weeks ending October 26, 2013, and November 2, 2013, but approved partial benefits for the week ending November 16, 2013, under Sections 401, 4(u) and 404(d), and approved benefits for the unpaid waiting week ending November 9, 2013, under Section 401(e)(1), and assessed a fault overpayment of $583.00;
• at EUC 14-09-G-2664, the Service Center denied EUC benefits for the weeks ending August 20, 2011, through September 3, 2011, and January 7, 2012, under Section 4001(b) of the EUC Act, and assessed a fraud overpayment of $1,740.00; denied EUC benefits for the weeks ending September 10, 2011, through October 15, 2011, and assessed a fraud overpayment of $2,175.00; denied EUC benefits for the weeks ending October 22, 2011, through December 31, 2011, and January 14, 2012, through February 4, 2012, and assessed a fraud overpayment of $6,525.00; and assessed an EUC fraud overpayment of $5,719.00 for the weeks ending September 8, 2012, through November 3, 2012, November 17, 2012, through January 19, 2013;
• at 14-09-G-2866, the Service Center determined that Claimant was ineligible for benefits for the weeks ending November 23, 2013, through February 1, 2014, under Section 402(b) of the Law because he voluntarily quit without necessitous and compelling cause, assessed a fault overpayment of $2,368.00, and imposed a 13-week penalty;
• at 14-09-G-2867, the Service Center imposed a 7-week penalty based on the finding of an overpayment of $762.00 because he was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) for the weeks ending February 8, 2014, through March 8, 2014.
43 P.S. §801. As the Service Center explained, "Under Section 401 of the [Law] [a]n individual shall be deemed unemployed with respect to any week during which he/she performs services for which remuneration is paid or payable to hi[m]/her and with respect to which no remuneration is paid or payable to hi[m]/her, or with respect to any week of less than full-time work if the remuneration paid or payable to hi[m]/her with respect to such week is less than his/her weekly benefit rate plus his/her partial benefit credit...." (Record Item No. 8 at 1).
43 P.S. §753(u). Section 4(u) provides, in relevant part, that "[a]n individual shall be deemed unemployed ... with respect to any week ... during which he performs no services for which remuneration is paid or payable to him and ... with respect to which no remuneration is paid or payable to him, or ... with respect to any week of less than his full-time work if the remuneration paid or payable to him with respect to such week is less."
43 P.S. §801(c). Section 401(c) states that "[c]ompensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed, and who ... [h]as made a valid application for benefits with respect to the benefit year for which compensation is claimed and has made a claim for compensation in the proper manner and on the form prescribed by the department."
43 P.S. §804(d). Section 404(d) states, in pertinent part, "[e]ach eligible employe who is unemployed with respect to any week ... shall be paid, with respect to such week, compensation in an amount equal to his weekly benefit rate less the total of ... the remuneration, if any, paid or payable to him with respect to such week for services performed which is in excess of his partial benefit credit...."
43 P.S. §801(e)(1). Section 401(e)(1) states that "[c]ompensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed and who ... [h]as been unemployed for a waiting period of one week."
Section 4001(b) of the EUC Act states that a "[t]he State will make payments of [EUC benefits] to individuals who—(1) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under the State law or under Federal law with respect to a benefit year... [or] (2) have no rights to regular compensation or extended compensation with respect to a week under such law or any other State unemployment compensation law or to compensation under any other Federal law...."
43 P.S. §802(b). Section 402(b) states, in relevant part, that "[a]n employe shall be 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, irrespective of whether or not such work is in 'employment' as defined in this act[.]"
Claimant appealed all seven of the determinations and they were consolidated for disposition by the Referee. At the Referee's hearing, Claimant testified that he started working for WL Roenigk, Inc. at the beginning of March 2011 after he initially applied for benefits, stopped working for that employer in November 2013 to find other employment, and then started working again in the beginning of March 2014. He acknowledged that while WL Roenigk, Inc. considered his employment as full-time, making two runs per day at over $31.00 per run, he only considered it part-time employment. He explained that when he initially filed for unemployment in February 2011, after he had separated from IBM Corp., a UC representative explained how to apply for benefits through the PAT telephone system. Claimant testified that the representative told him that he only needed to report that he was working if it was full-time employment and that he was earning more than his PBC. He conceded that he called the PAT system every two weeks and that he responded 53 times on the system that he was not working when he was, in fact, working for WL Roenigk, Inc. (N.T. 5/8/14 at 9-10). He also conceded that when he called the PAT system every two weeks, he was told that failure to report all work and earnings could result in prosecution. (Id. at 10).
Claimant acknowledged that he was told to report all wages above or below his PBC when he was contacted by the UC representative in February 2012 following an audit of his claims. (N.T. 5/8/14 at 11-12). He testified that he did not report the actual wages he earned after instructed to do so because he interpreted the instruction to report all wages to mean that he was only required to report all wages above $171.00. (Id. at 13). Claimant stated that he also "made a false statement by mistake" when he continued to file claims and report that he was working for WL Roenigk, Inc. after he had voluntarily quit that employment in November 2013. (Id. at 16). WL Roenigk, Inc. did not appear at the hearing.
Based on the evidence presented, the Referee issued seven decisions affirming, as modified, the Service Center's determinations and disposing of the appeals. Notably, the Referee determined that Claimant knowingly withheld information to receive benefits, failed to properly report his earnings thereby providing false information resulting in an overpayment of benefits, and intentionally failed to report his separation from WL Roenigk, Inc. to the UC authorities. The Referee determined that Claimant failed to submit valid applications for benefits by making false statements regarding his employment status or his earnings knowing that the statements were false. The Referee also found not credible Claimant's testimony regarding why he continued to report earnings following his separation from WL Roenigk, Inc. The Referee also determined that Claimant did not show that he had necessitous and compelling cause for terminating his employment with WL Roenigk, Inc. Because the overpayments were caused by Claimant's intentional conduct, the Referee determined that they were properly classified as either fraud under the EUC Act or fault under the Law. As a result, the Referee found overpayments totaling $39,869 and imposed a total of 68 penalty weeks.
Claimant appealed to the Board and the Board adopted the Referee's findings and conclusions as modified., Claimant filed a request for reconsideration, which the Board denied. Claimant then filed the instant appeals of the Board's orders.
With respect to EUC-14-09-G-2660 and EUC-14-09-G-2664, the Board noted that Claimant established a weekly benefit rate of $370.00 and a partial benefit credit of $148.00 on his application effective February 5, 2012, and that the EUC claims were established on January 28, 2013. With respect to 14-09-G-2662, the Board noted that Claimant earned $220.15 during the week ending July 28, 2012, rather than $405.00 as found by the Referee.
The Board is the ultimate fact-finder in unemployment compensation cases. Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383, 1389 (Pa. 1985). This Court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the Board, and to give that party the benefit of all inferences that can be logically and reasonably drawn from that evidence. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 378 A.2d 829, 831 (Pa. 1977). Findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings. Id.
Our scope of review of the Board's decision is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated, or whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Rock v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 A.3d 646, 648 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Claimant argues that he did not knowingly or intentionally commit fraud in submitting his claims for benefits because he filed his claims as instructed by the UC representative and that he may have made unknowing errors in his submissions based on improper information.
As noted above, Section 804(a) of the Law provides that "[a]ny person who by reason of his fault has received any sum as compensation under this act to which he was not entitled, shall be liable to repay ... a sum equal to the amount so received by him...." 43 P.S. §874(a). The word "fault" within the meaning of Section 804(a) connotes an act to which blame, censure, impropriety, shortcoming or culpability attaches. Summers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 430 A.2d 1046, 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). To find fault, the Board must make some findings with regard to Claimant's state of mind. Maiorana v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 453 A.2d 747, 749 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982). Conduct that is designed intentionally to mislead the UC authorities is sufficient to establish a fault overpayment. Greenawalt v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 543 A.2d 209, 211 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). Where a claimant fails to provide truthful information to the Service Center, Amspacher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 479 A.2d 688, 692 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984), or provides an intentional misstatement on an application for benefits, Matvey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 531 A.2d 840, 844 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), the imposition of a fault overpayment is appropriate. Additionally, as outlined above, Section 4005 of the EUC Act provides that an overpayment of EUC benefits shall be classified as fraud where an individual "knowingly has failed ... to disclose a material fact, and as a result of such ... nondisclosure such individual has received an amount of emergency unemployment compensation under this title to which such individual was not entitled."
We are not persuaded by Claimant's argument that the Board erred in determining that he knowingly or intentionally provided false or inaccurate information or withheld information in order to receive UC and EUC benefits. The Board chose to discredit Claimant's assertion that his continued and repeated inaccuracies and omissions were not knowing or intentional and there is ample record evidence to support its determination in this regard. On 53 separate occasions, Claimant indicated on the PAT system that he was not working when he was, in fact, working for WL Roenigk, Inc. after he had been specifically advised on each occasion that the failure to report all work and earnings could result in prosecution. Additionally, after he was instructed in February 2012 to report all wages following the audit, he continued to underreport his earnings from WL Roenigk, Inc. Moreover, he continued to report earnings from WL Roenigk, Inc. for months after he had voluntarily quit that employment. Such an extended course of conduct clearly supports the Board's determinations regarding Claimant's state of mind, the denial of UC and EUC benefits, and the imposition of fault and fraud overpayments and penalty weeks.
As this Court has explained:
Truthfully divulging all pertinent information regarding one's employment is required so the unemployment compensation authorities may make an intelligent and well-informed decision as to a claimant's eligibility for benefits and proper computation of such benefits. This requirement, which is imposed upon all claimants, "assists in fulfilling the Commonwealth's duty to protect the unemployment compensation fund against dissipation by those not entitled to benefits under the law."
Accordingly, the Board's orders are affirmed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2015, the orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review are affirmed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
Castello v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 86 A.3d 294, 298-99 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (citation omitted).