Opinion
No. 1461 C.D. 2011
04-18-2012
Carma Palonis, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY
Carma Palonis (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the June 1, 2011 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirming the decision of the Referee assessing fraud overpayments of emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) benefits. The issue before this Court is whether the UCBR erred by affirming the fraud overpayments assessed by the Referee. We affirm.
The record reveals that Claimant began receiving EUC benefits effective August 30, 2009 at a rate of $271.00 per week. By notice from the Harrisburg Overflow Center (UC Service Center) issued December 13, 2010, Claimant's request for EUC was denied pursuant to Section 4001(b) of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (EUC Act) for weeks ending September 11, 2010 through October 16, 2010. Issued to Claimant on the same date were a notice of determination of fraud overpayment of EUC benefits in the amount of $1,626.00 pursuant to Section 4005(a)-(c) of the EUC Act; a notice of determination of fraud overpayment of federal additional compensation (FAC) benefits pursuant to Section 2002(f) of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Section 4005(a)-(c) of the EUC Act in the amount of $150.00; and, a notice assessing Claimant an 8-week benefit penalty pursuant to Section 401(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), and Section 4005(a)(1) of the EUC Act.
Act of June 30, 2008, P.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2353, as amended, § 4001(b), 26 U.S.C. § 3304 Note.
Act of June 30, 2008, P.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2353, as amended, § 4005(a), (b), (c), 26 U.S.C. § 3304 Note.
Act of February 17, 2009, P.L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 437, as amended, § 2002(f), 26 U.S.C. § 3304 Note.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 801(b).
Claimant appealed, contending that she did not fraudulently apply for and receive UC and EUC benefits. On March 7, 2011, the Referee held a hearing at which Daniel John, UC claims examiner for the Department of Labor and Industry (Department), testified. Claimant did not participate in the hearing. Following the hearing, the Referee issued a decision and order affirming the UC Service Center's determinations disapproving Claimant's EUC benefits and assessing fraud overpayments and the 8-week penalty. Claimant appealed to the UCBR and requested another hearing. On June 1, 2011, the UCBR affirmed the Referee's decision, and denied Claimant's request for a hearing. Claimant appealed, pro se, to this Court.
This Court's review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether errors of law were committed. Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). --------
Claimant argues that she should not have to pay back the EUC overpayments because they were not her fault. We disagree. Section 4001(b) of the EUC Act, provides that a "State agency . . . will make payments of emergency unemployment compensation 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 . . . ." Section 4005 of the EUC Act provides in pertinent part as follows:
(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 false statement or representation or of such nondisclosure such individual has received an amount of [EUC] under this title to which such individual was not entitled, such individual-
(1) shall be ineligible for further [EUC] under this title in accordance with the provisions of the applicable State unemployment compensation law relating to fraud in connection with a claim for unemployment compensation; and
(2) shall be subject to prosecution under section 1001 of title 18, United States Code.
(b) Repayment. -- In the case of individuals who have received amounts of emergency unemployment compensation under this title to which they were not entitled, the State shall require such individuals to repay the amounts of such emergency unemployment compensation to the State agency, except that the State agency may waive such repayment if it determines that —
(1) the payment of such emergency unemployment compensation 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 emergency unemployment compensation payable to
such individual under this title or from any unemployment compensation payable to such individual . . . .
According to Mr. John's testimony, on September 5, 2010, Claimant filed for EUC benefits for weeks ending August 28 and September 4, 2010, but the funds were not immediately released. On September 8, 2010, Claimant contacted the UC Service Center to find out why her benefits were withheld. A UC Service Center representative released Claimant's EUC benefits for the week ending August 28, 2010, which was the last week she was entitled to EUC benefits, and she was instructed to file for regular benefits on September 12, 2010 for weeks ending September 4 and 11, 2010. Claimant did so and, on September 17, 2010, the week ending September 4, 2010 was credited as her waiting week, and she received regular UC benefits for the week ending September 11, 2010 at a weekly rate of $239.00. Claimant was instructed to next file for regular UC benefits on September 26, 2010 for weeks ending September 18 and 25, 2010. However, Claimant filed for EUC benefits for the weeks ending September 11 and 18, 2010. As a result, Claimant, who had already received regular UC benefits for the week ending September 11, 2010, also received EUC benefits for that week.
Claimant should have made her next bi-weekly filing on October 10, 2010. However, on October 4, 2010, despite having received EUC benefits for the week ending September 18, 2010, she filed for regular UC benefits for weeks ending September 18 and 25, 2010. Less than a week later, on October 10, 2010, despite having received regular UC benefits for the week ending September 25, 2010, Claimant filed for EUC benefits for the weeks ending September 25, and October 2, 2010. Again, less than 2 weeks later, on October 20, 2010, Claimant filed for EUC benefits for weeks ending October 9 and 16, 2010. She also filed for regular UC benefits, despite having already received such benefits for those weeks. On October 24, 2010, despite already receiving EUC benefits for the week ending October 16, 2010, Claimant filed for regular benefits for weeks ending October 16 and 23, 2010. Thus, for weeks ending September 11, 18 and 25, and October 2, 9, and 16, 2010, Claimant received both regular and EUC benefits, and filed for benefits more often than bi-weekly. Consequently, she received $1,626.00 in EUC benefits during that period.
According to Mr. John, the compensation system would normally reflect only one claim option open for a claimant to select when making his or her bi-weekly claims. He acknowledged that Claimant had both the EUC and regular UC options open to her because the EUC payments, although stopped, were in a continued claims maintenance system and showed that additional weeks were available to her. He testified, however, that Claimant did not have to choose both options, nor did she have to apply for benefits sooner than the bi-weekly timetable. She would have known from her Financial Determination that, as of August 29, 2010, her new regular UC benefit was $239.00, and not the $271.00 she received for EUC benefits. He also stated that claimants can print out a notification of what weeks they have filed for benefits. He further testified that there is no record of Claimant contacting the Department about receiving double payments. Mr. John concluded that, according to the Department's guidelines, "if a Claimant has multiple duplicate weeks based on various filing occurrences and then made no effort to contact the UC Service Center about the issue[,] it indicates [an] intent to allow the receipt of improper payment to continue . . . and is considered fraudulent." Notes of Testimony, March 7, 2011 at 7.
Claimant argues that the overpayments she received were not her fault. According to Claimant's brief, she opened a new claim for regular UC benefits in August 2010 because she was told she earned approximately the same amount of money as her EUC benefits and, consequently, she had to file a new regular UC claim. She also alleges being told that while she received the new regular UC benefits, her EUC benefits would be frozen and unavailable to her. She claims that she only applied for benefits for weeks she believed she was eligible for, that she was erroneously given access to EUC benefits, and that she was not aware she had received both benefits during the weeks at issue. Despite these contentions, Claimant does not dispute that she received double payments during the affected weeks. She admits in her brief that she understood her EUC benefits were to be frozen because she was not entitled to them, yet she accepted them without reporting the situation to the Department. Moreover, despite being told she was to file her claims bi-weekly, she applied more often on several occasions.
Because Claimant's new regular UC benefits year was effective on August 29, 2010, and she was not entitled to EUC benefits until those were exhausted, the Referee properly denied the EUC benefits paid to her during the weeks ending September 11, 18 and 25, and October 2, 9, and 16, 2010. The record is clear that Claimant applied for and received both regular and EUC benefits to which she was not entitled, thereby creating an overpayment of EUC benefits. Under the circumstances, the UCBR did not err by affirming the fraud overpayments assessed by the Referee.
For all of the above reasons, the UCBR's order is affirmed.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2012, the June 1, 2011 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge