Opinion
November 15, 1961.
December 14, 1961.
Unemployment Compensation — Appeals — Timeliness — Extension of time for filing appeal — Allegation that claimant was misled by clerk in local office — Evidence — Unemployment Compensation Law.
1. In unemployment compensation cases, neither the board nor the appellate court has the power to extend the time of appeal in the absence of a showing of fraud or its equivalent.
2. In this case, in which claimant contended that he was misled by the clerk in the local office as to the time limit for appeal from the decision of the bureau, it was Held that there was competent evidence to support the finding of the compensation authorities that claimant was not misled or misinformed by any clerk or representative regarding the filing of his appeal.
Before ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ. (RHODES, P.J., absent).
Appeal, No. 269, April T., 1961, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-64308, in re claim of Willis E. Miller. Decision affirmed.
Willis E. Miller, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued November 15, 1961.
In this unemployment compensation case the Bureau of Employment Security issued a decision denying benefits under § 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 802 (b)(1). A copy of this decision was mailed to the claimant, Willis E. Miller, on January 20, 1961, and was received by him on that day. The notice informed him that January 30, 1961, was the last day on which to file an appeal from this decision.
The claimant did not file an appeal on or before January 30, 1961, but waited until February 2, 1961, before filing. The referee dismissed the appeal on this ground and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the decision.
The claimant contends that he was misled by the clerk in the local office as to the time limit for appeal, but admits that he failed to read the notice provided for him which clearly stated the last day for appeal. His testimony is conflicting and there is a denial that he was misled in any way, and there is competent testimony to support the finding that he was not misled or misinformed by any clerk representative regarding the filing of his appeal.
The issue raised by the claimant has been decided many times by this Court. Neither the Board nor this Court has the power to extend the time of appeal in the absence of a showing of fraud or its equivalent, which is certainly not present here. McKinney Unemployment Compensation Case, 190 Pa. Super. 470.
Decision affirmed.