Wojciechowski v. Commonwealth

18 Citing cases

  1. Heckmann v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

    No. 1313 C.D. 2018 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Apr. 16, 2019)

    First, we address Claimant's argument that the Referee violated his due process rights. The essential elements of due process in an administrative proceeding are notice and an opportunity to be heard. Groch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 472 A.2d 286, 287-88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984); Wojciechowskiv. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 407 A.2d 142, 143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). An allegation of a violation of due process essentially challenges whether the Referee conducted the hearing in accordance with Section 101.21 of Title 34 of the Pennsylvania Code.Hackler v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 24 A.3d 1112, 1115 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). This Court has consistently held that the unemployment compensation authority's failure to provide an itemized list of a claimant's options upon appeal is not a violation of due process.

  2. Joseph P. Rudolph M.D. v. Pa. Blue Shield

    451 Pa. Super. 300 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996)   Cited 1 times

    The essential elements of due process in administrative proceedings are notice and the opportunity to be heard and to defend in an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case, before a tribunal with jurisdiction over the matter. Greenstein v. Commonwealth Dept. of Health, 98 Pa. Commw. 445, 453, 512 A.2d 739, 743 (1986), citing Wojciechowski v.Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 47 Pa. Commw. 116, 119, 407 A.2d 142, 143 (1979). Further, our Supreme Court has noted that "due process is not synonymous with judicial process."

  3. Gentex Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue

    247 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2021)

    This Court has previously held that "the right to due process does not require an administrative agency to provide a party with notice of the right to appeal from the agency's decision when the agency or the Legislature has provided a duly published procedure for a hearing or appeal ." Wojciechowski v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. , 407 A.2d 142, 143-144 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (emphasis added). However, in the absence of any guidance from the Department's Secretary on the "procedures by which a taxpayer may appeal or seek review of any adverse decision of the department, including administrative and judicial appeals" or the "procedure for filing and processing ... taxpayer complaints and the time frames for departmental action" relative to Tax Credit denials, where the Tax Credit law, itself, is silent on same, Gentex reasonably relied upon the TBOR and the guidance provided by the Department on its website.

  4. Quigley v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

    225 A.3d 914 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Groch v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 81 Pa.Cmwlth. 26, 472 A.2d 286, 287-88 (1984). See alsoWojciechowski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 47 Pa.Cmwlth. 116, 407 A.2d 142, 143 (1979). The due process violation is even more egregious here because Claimant had intended to present evidence before the Referee, but her continuance request was denied.

  5. Powell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

    No. 1418 C.D. 2017 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Feb. 1, 2019)

    With regard to his due process challenge, Claimant argues that he was entitled to due process in the form of a fair hearing by a neutral fact finder. The essential elements of due process in an administrative proceeding are notice and an opportunity to be heard. Groch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 472 A.2d 286, 287-88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984); Wojciechowski v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 407 A.2d 142, 143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Claimant appears to argue that he did not receive due process because the various referees work together and for the Board. Claimant cites Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 605 A.2d 1204 (Pa. 1992), in support of his argument.

  6. Foreman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

    No. 1025 C.D. 2017 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Aug. 22, 2018)

    Finally, we address Claimant's argument that the Referee deprived him of his due process rights. The essential elements of due process in an administrative proceeding are notice and an opportunity to be heard. Groch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 472 A.2d 286, 287-88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984); Wojciechowski v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 407 A.2d 142, 143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Unrepresented claimants are entitled to assistance from the referee in the form of information regarding the unrepresented claimant's rights, aid during the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and any assistance compatible with the impartial discharge of the referee's official duties. 34 Pa. Code § 101.21(a). The parties are permitted to present testimony which they believe is necessary to establish their rights.

  7. Arena Beverage Corp. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd.

    97 A.3d 444 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2014)   Cited 13 times

    An agency is not required to “list ... all of the consequences which could result from a decision not to appeal an adverse ... determination.” Wojciechowski v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 47 Pa.Cmwlth. 116, 407 A.2d 142, 143 (1979).The law is well-established that where a liquor license is not renewed, and the Board's decision is not appealed, the license ceases to exist.

  8. Walsh v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

    No. 1248 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. May. 13, 2013)

    While we recognize that the Service Center is not legally obligated to give claimants notice of all consequences stemming from an adverse decision, we are troubled by the lack of any reference anywhere in the record to a potential impact on benefits granted in connection with Claimant's separation from First Quality as a result of the part-time position with Employer. See Wojciechowski v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 407 A.2d 142, 143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). In Wojciechowski, this Court held that the lack of notice to a claimant that the referee's decision could result in claims for reimbursement of compensation paid, did not justify a late appeal.

  9. Cooper v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

    No. 2118 C.D. 2011 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Sep. 7, 2012)

    "The essential elements of due process in administrative proceedings are notice and the opportunity to be heard and to defend in an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case, before a tribunal with jurisdiction over the matter." Wojciechowski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 407 A.2d 142, 143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Section 101.107, which governs what issues the Board may consider on appeal, states:

  10. Bereznak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

    No. 1366 C.D. 2011 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jul. 20, 2012)

    While we recognize that the Department is not legally obligated to give claimants notice of all consequences stemming from an adverse decision, we are troubled by the lack of any reference anywhere in the record to a potential impact on benefits granted as a result of Claimant's employment with BNY Mellon. See Wojciechowski v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 407 A.2d 142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). In Wojciechowski, this Court held that the lack of notice to a claimant that the referee's decision could result in claims for reimbursement of compensation paid, did not justify a late appeal.