Opinion
No. 1006 C.D. 2012
03-15-2013
Scott Hendrickson, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT
Scott Hendrickson (Claimant) petitions for review of an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) holding him ineligible for benefits under Section 231 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act), 19 U.S.C. §2291. The Trade Act has established several programs to help American workers who are adversely affected by foreign imports, including a Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA) benefits program that funds training, job searches and relocation for displaced workers. The TRA benefits program is administered by the state agencies that handle the unemployment compensation system. The Board affirmed the decision of the Referee that Claimant was ineligible for the job training benefit because he had neither enrolled in an approved job training program nor requested a waiver from the deadline for enrollment. Discerning no error in the Board's decision, we affirm.
See McQuown v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 834 A.2d 692, 693 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
The facts of this case are undisputed. Claimant went to work for Steris Corporation as a customer service representative in 2008. On May 27, 2011, Claimant's job was eliminated when the plant where he worked closed. While collecting unemployment compensation benefits, Claimant entered into a respiratory care program at Gannon University. Because Claimant had been out of school for some time, the University required him to complete several prerequisite courses before starting the respiratory care program. To qualify for TRA reimbursement for this education, Claimant had to enroll in an approved training program by November 26, 2011, or request a waiver from that enrollment deadline.
In January 2012, Claimant applied for TRA benefits to cover the cost of his prerequisite courses, which he took on-line. The Erie UC Service Center denied benefits for the stated reason that Claimant had not met the November 26, 2011, deadline. Claimant appealed, and the Referee conducted a hearing at which Claimant and witnesses from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry appeared.
Nilsa Rivera, a CareerLink specialist with the Department, testified. She explained that Claimant requested reimbursement for his on-line prerequisite courses in August 2011. Rivera explained to Claimant that his on-line courses had to be approved and to obtain that approval, the course provider needed to upload the courses through the CareerLink office. On October 13, 2011, when Rivera realized that the provider still had not uploaded the courses, she called Claimant to remind him of this requirement. The provider never did the upload.
James Reese, a Workforce Development Analyst with the Department, testified. Reese explained that under the Trade Act, Claimant had until November 26, 2011, either to enroll in an approved program or to request a 45-day extension of time, i.e., a waiver request. Claimant requested a waiver on December 22, 2011, but Reese denied the request as untimely. The Erie UC Service Center supervisor, Jacqueline Gaub, also testified that Claimant's request for TRA benefits had been denied because he had not met the deadline.
Claimant testified in support of his claim. He explained that he needed courses in algebra, chemistry and biology before he could enter Gannon University's respiratory care program. Claimant acknowledged that Rivera had told him in October 2011 that the course provider had to upload information to CareerLink. He contacted Gannon University but was told that they could not do the upload. In late October 2011, Claimant started the on-line courses. Because he started the courses before the November 26 deadline, Claimant believed he had complied with the Trade Act and did not need a waiver of the enrollment deadline. In December 2011, when he found out he was mistaken in this belief, he applied for a waiver. He acknowledged of his waiver request, "obviously, that was too late." Referee Hearing, February 16, 2012, at 10. Claimant explained that by the time of the hearing before the Referee, he had finished the on-line courses and was enrolled in the respiratory care program, the costs of which were being reimbursed by TRA. Claimant's only remaining issue was reimbursement for the on-line courses.
The Referee found that Claimant was required to be enrolled in an approved program or to have sought a waiver by November 26, 2011, and that Claimant did not meet either requirement. Claimant explained that it was the educational provider's failure that resulted in his on-line courses not being approved; however, he did not explain his failure to seek a timely waiver. The Referee concluded that Claimant was not eligible for TRA benefits for his on-line courses. Claimant appealed, and the Board affirmed. Claimant then petitioned for this Court's review.
Our review is limited to determining whether the Board's adjudication is in violation of constitutional rights, whether errors of law were committed, or whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 841, 843 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). "Review for capricious disregard of material, competent evidence is an appropriate component of appellate consideration in every case in which such question is properly brought before the court." Leon E. Wintermyer, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Marlowe), 571 Pa. 189, 203, 812 A.2d 478, 487 (2002). Capricious disregard of the evidence will only be found where there is a willful disregard of competent testimony and relevant evidence which one of ordinary intelligence could not possibly have avoided in reaching a result. Yanall v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania State Police), 451 A.2d 797, 798 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
On appeal, Claimant argues that the Board erred in finding him ineligible for TRA benefits for two reasons. First, Claimant asserts that he complied with the Trade Act by starting his prerequisite on-line courses prior to the deadline. Second, Claimant contends that the Board capriciously disregarded evidence that Claimant had good cause for his failure to comply with the Trade Act's deadlines.
In order to receive TRA benefits, a claimant must meet the Trade Act's qualification requirements and deadlines. Hall v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 A.3d 1204, 1207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). Under Section 231(a)(5)(A) of the Trade Act, a claimant is eligible to receive TRA benefits if the claimant "is enrolled in a training program approved by the Secretary" under Section 236(a) no later than the last day of the 26th week after total separation from employment. 19 U.S.C. §2291(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added). In turn, Section 236(a)(1) states that if certain criteria are met, "the Secretary shall approve such training for the worker. Upon such approval, the worker shall be entitled to" payment of TRA benefits for the training. 19 U.S.C. §2296(a)(1) (emphasis added). Section 231(c)(1) of the Trade Act provides that a worker may obtain a waiver of the requirement to be enrolled in approved training prior to the deadline "if the Secretary determines that it is not feasible or appropriate for the worker[.]" 19 U.S.C. §2291(c)(1).
Section 231(a)(5) states, in relevant part, as follows:
(a) Trade readjustment allowance conditions. Payment of a trade readjustment allowance shall be made to an adversely affected worker ... if the following conditions are met:
***
(5) Such worker--
(A)(i) is enrolled in a training program approved by the Secretary under [19 U.S.C. §2296(a)], and
(A)(ii) the enrollment required under clause (i) occurs no later than the latest of—
19 U.S.C. §2291(a)(5).(I) in the case of a worker whose most recent total separation from adversely affected employment ... occurs after the date on which the Secretary issues a certification covering the worker, the last day of the 26th week after such total separation[.]
Specifically, Section 236(a)(1) states, in relevant part, that
the Secretary shall approve such training for the worker. Upon such approval, the worker shall be entitled to have payment of the costs of such (subject to the limitations imposed by this section) training paid on the worker's behalf by the Secretary directly or through a voucher system.19 U.S.C. §2296(a)(1).
Claimant argues that by starting his on-line courses before November 26, 2011, he fulfilled the requirements of the Trade Act. Claimant is mistaken. Courses must first be approved before TRA benefits can be paid, and Claimant's on-line courses were never approved.
In the alternative, Claimant argues that the Board capriciously disregarded evidence showing that he showed good cause for not meeting the Trade Act's time deadline in this case. Claimant contends that he had "no way of knowing whether the provider [was] uploading courses and supplying CareerLink with the requisite information," which he characterizes as an "administrative problem" between the university, the CareerLink office and the UC Service Center. He contends that this "administrative problem" constituted good cause to extend the deadline. Claimant requests a remand for the Board to consider whether he had good cause for missing the November 26, 2011, deadline.
In support, Claimant relies on Hall, 42 A.3d 1204. In that case, the claimant faced a July deadline for enrolling in approved courses, but the courses were not available until the fall. In April, the claimant spoke to her CareerLink counselor and orally requested a waiver of her TRA deadline. The CareerLink counselor assured the claimant that the counselor would "take care of" the paperwork. The claimant was then denied TRA benefits for the fall semester. The claimant appealed, arguing that she was entitled to TRA benefits because an administrative breakdown caused her to miss the deadline.
In Hall, this Court acknowledged the case of Lowe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 877 A.2d 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), which held that the Trade Act deadlines were to be strictly applied and could not be extended for any reason. Subsequent to Lowe, however, Section 234(b) of the Trade Act was amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to allow "application of state law waiver doctrines to the TRA program's enrollment deadlines." Hall, 42 A.3d at 1208. Accordingly, we remanded the matter to the Board for a determination of whether the claimant was eligible for nunc pro tunc relief.
Act of February 17, 2009, Pub.L. 111-5, Div. B, Title I: "Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009," §1825, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §2294.
The Board responds that Hall is distinguishable because Claimant was not misled in any way and missed the deadline through his own fault. Therefore, Claimant cannot show good cause for waiving the Trade Act's time deadline requirement. We agree.
Section 234(b) of the Trade Act, as amended in 2009, states as follows:
(b) Special Rule With Respect to State Laws and Regulations on Good Cause for Waiver of Time Limits or Late Filing of Claims.
19 U.S.C. §2294(b). In Pennsylvania, a claimant can obtain a waiver of a time limitation, known as nunc pro tunc relief, in the limited circumstance where the claimant shows that there has been an administrative breakdown. The administrative agency must be shown to have acted negligently, improperly or in a misleading way, intentionally or unintentionally. Hessou v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 942 A.2d 194, 198 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). In the alternative, the claimant must show that a deadline was missed because of non-negligent conduct beyond the claimant's control. Id.Any law, regulation, policy, or practice of a cooperating State that allows for a waiver for good cause of any time limitation relating to the administration of the State unemployment insurance law shall, in the administration of the program under this chapter by the State, apply to any time limitation with respect to an application for a trade readjustment allowance or enrollment in training under this chapter.
Section 234(b) was again amended by the Act of October 21, 2011, Pub.L. 112-40, Title II, §212(b). Section 234(b) now reads:
(b) Special rule on good cause for waiver of time limits or late filing of claims.--The Secretary shall establish procedures and criteria that allow for a waiver for good cause of the time limitations with respect to an application for a trade readjustment allowance or enrollment in training under this part.19 U.S.C. §2294(b). This new amendment to Section 234(b) applies to petitions for certification filed on or after the 2011 enactment date. Here, Steris Corporation's petition was certified in July 2010, meaning that the prior 2009 version applies to Claimant.
Here, the Department advised Claimant in August 2011 and again in October 2011 that his on-line courses had to be uploaded before they could be approved or that he needed a waiver of the November 26, 2011, deadline. Several weeks before that deadline, the Department instructed Claimant on what he needed to do. When the University advised Claimant it could not upload the course information, it became incumbent upon Claimant to seek a waiver. He did not do so.
Claimant's stated reason for not seeking a waiver was that he was "under the impression" that he did not need to do so because he started his courses prior to the deadline. This "impression" was not based on misleading or unclear information given to him by the Department. Claimant was simply mistaken, which is not non-negligent conduct. See Hessou, 942 A.2d at 200 (a claimant's mistake about or failure to understand procedures does not warrant nunc pro tunc relief).
Accordingly, a remand is unnecessary. See Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947, 950 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (although the Board made no finding on whether the claimant had proper cause for missing a hearing, which would typically warrant a remand, the Court declined to remand the matter because a remand "would serve no useful purpose" where the claimant's reasons for his absence were "insufficient as a matter of law."). --------
In sum, because Claimant did not meet the Trade Act deadline with respect to his on-line courses and cannot point to a reason for missing the deadline that constitutes good cause under Pennsylvania law, the Board did not err in denying TRA benefits. Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.
/s/_________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2013, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated April 10, 2012, in the above captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge