Opinion
No. 2185 C.D. 2011
05-31-2012
Eric G. Marttila, 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
Eric G. Marttila (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) dismissing his petition for appeal because he failed to timely file an appeal as required under Section 501(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). Because we find no error in the Board's decision, we affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess. P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §821(e). Section 501(e) of the Law provides:
Unless the claimant or last employer or base-year employer of the claimant files an appeal with the board, from the determination contained in any notice required to be furnished by the department under section five hundred and one (a), (c) and (d), within fifteen calendar days after such notice was delivered to him personally, or was mailed to his last known post office address, and applies for a hearing, such determination of the department, with respect to the particular facts set forth in such notice, shall be final and compensation shall be paid or denied in accordance therewith.
Claimant filed an application for Unemployment Compensation benefits on February 13, 2011. On March 10, 2011, the Unemployment Compensation Service Center (Service Center) issued two Notices of Determination: the first indicated that Claimant was eligible for benefits under Section 402(e) because he was not discharged for willful misconduct, but the second indicated that he was ineligible under Section 402(h) due to engaging in self-employment. Claimant, however, only saw the determination finding him eligible under 402(e) and did not take out the other documents in the envelope. He submitted bi-weekly claims for benefits and received a notice each time that his claim was accepted, but did not check his bank account to ensure that any money was deposited. On July 20, 2011, Claimant checked his bank account and discovered that no money representing unemployment compensation benefits had been deposited. He then reviewed his documents from the Service Center and discovered the second Notice of Determination which found him ineligible for benefits under Section 402(h). Claimant filed an appeal on the same day.
Section 402(e) of the Law provides:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week -
(e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work, irrespective of whether or not such work is "employment" as defined in this act.
Section 402(h) of the Law provides: "An employe shall be ineligible for compensation in any week - (h) In which he is engaged in self-employment." 43 P.S. §802(h).
Before the Referee, Claimant testified that he received both Notices of Determination on or about March 14, 2011, and only read the notice that said he was eligible for benefits. He then began to submit bi-weekly claims for benefits and always received confirmation notices that the claims had been accepted. Claimant further testified that on July 20, 2011, he noticed no money for unemployment compensation had been either deposited to his bank account or credited to a debit MasterCard that had been issued to him. He said he had not been checking his bank account because he did not want to rely on the unemployment compensation money and planned to use it only in the event of an emergency. It was at this point that Claimant first read the second Notice of Determination which found him ineligible for benefits under Section 402(h), which had been issued on the same day and was sent in the same envelope as the other notice.
The Referee noted that the confirmation notices were merely acknowledgements that Claimant filed a claim. (Hearing Transcript dated August 19, 2011, at 3.)
Based on Claimant's testimony, the Referee found that Claimant did not meet the criteria under Section 501(e) of the Law, and Claimant was negligent in failing to look at all documents sent to him in the Notices of Determination and in failing to check his bank account. Claimant appealed to the Board, which affirmed the decision of the Referee. This appeal followed.
An appeal period may be extended where a claimant is deprived of the right to appeal due to a breakdown in the legal system. Effort Foundry, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 415 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). An extension may also be granted where:
an appeal is not timely because of non-negligent circumstances, either as they relate to appellant or his counsel, and the appeal is filed within a short time after the appellant or his counsel learns of and has an opportunity to address the untimeliness, and the time period which elapses is of very short duration, and appellee is not prejudiced by the delay.
On appeal, Claimant contends that by placing two notices in an envelope created an administrative breakdown that unintentionally misled him to believe his request for unemployment compensation benefits was granted and he therefore did not need to file an appeal. To support this contention, Claimant cites Stana v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 791 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), which provides that "where a person is unintentionally misled by an officer who is authorized to act in the premises, courts will relieve an innocent party of injury consequent on such misleading act, where it is possible to do so." Stana, 791 A.2d at 1271 (quoting Layton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 A.2d 125, 125 (Pa. Super. 1944)).
Claimant does not demonstrate how receiving two notices in the same envelope - one which found him eligible for benefits and one which found him ineligible - amounts to an administrative breakdown. Because he admits that he received the determination finding him ineligible for benefits under Section 402(h) of the Law, Claimant was not misled by the Service Center, but only by his own failure to read all documents sent to him. Additionally, as the Referee pointed out, while Claimant received confirmation notices after he submitted his bi-weekly claims, these notices were nothing more than a confirmation that the claim had been received, not a notification that Claimant would be paid. Claimant's subjective belief, coupled with his failure to monitor whether he was actually receiving the money, does not amount to an administrative breakdown.
Claimant also argues that he should be allowed to file his claim late because he did not act negligently in failing to timely file his appeal. However, the Board properly determined that Claimant was negligent in failing to read all documents in the envelope from the Service Center and in failing to monitor his bank account for several months. Claimant's appeal was, therefore, properly dismissed as untimely.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Board.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2012, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated October 26, 2011, is affirmed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
(Emphasis added). If an appeal is not filed within 15 days of mailing, the determination becomes final and the Board is without jurisdiction to consider the matter. Renda v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 837 A.2d 685 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
43 P.S. §802(e).
UPMC Health System v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 852 A.2d 467, 470 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (quoting Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 543 Pa. 381, 384, 671 A.2d 1130, 1131 (1996)).