# J.F. Brucker v. UCBR

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · December 10, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10757596

## Case

- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 10, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Fizzano Cannon
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10757596

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that UC benefits do not cover “the physically or mentally ill during the periods they are unemployable”

## Opinion text

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John F. Brucker, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, : No. 1621 C.D. 2023
Respondent : Submitted: November 7, 2024

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: December 10, 2024

John F. Brucker (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of the
November 22, 2023, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
(Board). The Board affirmed the referee’s determination that Claimant was unable
and unavailable to work and, therefore, ineligible for unemployment compensation
benefits (UC benefits) under Section 401(d)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation
Law (Law), 43 P.S. § 801(d)(1).1 Upon review, we affirm.

I. Factual & Procedural Background
Claimant previously worked for Home Depot. Certified Record (C.R.)
at 11.2 On July 14, 2020, he applied online for UC benefits. Id. at 6. The docket

1
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S.
§§ 751-919.10.

2
Certified Record references are to electronic pagination.
indicates that his claim took some time to evaluate, but on May 17, 2021, the UC
service center issued a notice of determination advising Claimant that he was
ineligible for UC benefits because he “is unable to perform any type of work at all
due to his health condition” and “in order to qualify for benefits, a claimant must
show that he is able and available” to work during the weeks he seeks UC benefits.
Id. at 8.
The notice stated that the last day for Claimant to appeal was June 1,
2021. C.R. at 8. Claimant was initially advised that his appeal was untimely because
it was not received by the Department of Labor & Industry (Department) until
August 19, 2021. Id. at 11. A referee conducted a telephonic hearing on September
17, 2021. Claimant presented an explanation and evidence to establish that his
appeal from the notice of determination had been timely. Id. at 66-69.
On the merits, Claimant stated that when he worked for Home Depot,
he sustained a work-related back injury in October 2018. C.R. at 70. He had been
out of work since January 2019 due to that injury. Id. He settled his workers’
compensation claim from that injury and resigned his employment with Home Depot
in June 2020, shortly before he applied for UC benefits. Id. at 14 & 70. If he had
been offered a job in July 2020 when he applied for UC benefits, he would not have
been able to take it because his doctor had “physically listed [him] as disabled” and
unable to work at all. Id. at 70. He believed that UC benefits were “supposed to be
a bridge” between his workers’ compensation settlement and his eligibility for Social
Security Disability benefits so that he did not have to spend his settlement funds. Id.
at 69. His disability was ongoing as of the September 2021 hearing. Id. at 71.
The referee acknowledged issues with Claimant’s case and surmised
that the delay between Claimant’s application and receipt of determination was

2
likely because the time between when he went out of work on workers’
compensation and when he applied for UC benefits would not have counted in the
Department’s calculation of his earnings, so it was necessary to go further back to
get that information. C.R. at 73. Also, the Department had to confirm the nature of
Claimant’s separation from Home Depot in order to determine his eligibility. Id.
The referee stated that this kind of administrative investigation can take time and the
circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic made it more difficult and slower.
Id. at 73-74. The referee explained, however, that Claimant’s acknowledgement of
complete disability rendered him ineligible for UC benefits because they are
designed to compensate people who are able and available to work and who are
unemployed through no fault of their own, not disabled people eligible for Social
Security Disability benefits. Id. at 72-74.
The referee issued a decision on September 24, 2021. The referee
found that Claimant’s appeal from the May 2021 notice of determination had been
timely. C.R. at 78. However, the referee also found that Claimant “was not able to
perform any work” for the weeks he applied for benefits because “he was deemed
disabled by his doctor.” C.R. at 78. The referee concluded, therefore, that Claimant
was not able and available to work, as required by Section 401(d)(1) of the Law to
be eligible for UC benefits. Id. Claimant timely appealed to the Board, which
affirmed in a November 22, 2023, final order that similarly concluded Claimant had
not shown that he was able and available to work during the weeks he sought to
receive UC benefits. Id. at 100-01. Claimant timely appealed pro se to this Court.

3
II. Issues
Claimant asks why his claim was denied “on no real grounds” when he
paid into the system from paycheck deductions while he was previously employed
and generally challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Board’s
determination. See Pro Se Letter & Ancillary Notice of Appeal; Claimant’s Br. at
3-11. The Board’s counsel responds that Claimant admitted at the hearing that when
he applied for UC benefits, he was unable to work at all because his doctor had
deemed him disabled. Board’s Br. at 5. Board counsel notes that being able and
available to work is a statutory precondition to receive UC benefits; as such, there
was no error in the denial of Claimant’s application. Id. at 5-7.

III. Discussion
A. Claimant’s Eligibility for UC Benefits
Section 401 of the Law sets forth conditions that must be met for a
claimant to be eligible for UC benefits.3 Relevant to this appeal, Section 401(d)(1)
requires that a claimant “[i]s able to work and available for suitable work” to be
eligible for UC benefits. 43 P.S. § 801(d)(1). A claimant who is “physically
unavailable for work is thereby disqualified from benefits” because otherwise,
unemployment compensation would become what it was not designed to be: short-
term disability benefits. McCurdy v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 442 A.2d
1230, 1231 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982); see also Carter v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of

3
“Our review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated,
an error of law was committed or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial
competent evidence.” Key v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 687 A.2d 409, 411 n.2 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1996) (citing 2 Pa.C.S. § 704).

4
Rev., 442 A.2d 1245, 1248 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (holding that UC benefits do not
cover “the physically or mentally ill during the periods they are unemployable”).
Procedurally, claimants are presumed to be able and available to work.
Rohde v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 28 A.3d 237, 243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).
This presumption is rebuttable by evidence that the claimant is physically limited or
unable to work. Id. If the presumption of availability is rebutted, the burden shifts
to the claimant to produce evidence that he is “able to do some type of work and that
there is a reasonable opportunity for securing such work.” Id. “The law does not
require that the employee be available for full-time work, for permanent work, for
his most recent work, or for his customary job, so long as the claimant is ready,
willing, and able to accept some suitable work.” Id. If a claimant fails to challenge
specific findings of fact made by the Board, the Board’s findings of fact are
“conclusive on appeal.” Campbell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 694 A.2d
1167, 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
Claimant stated in his appeal of the Department’s May 2021
determination that he was disabled and seeking Social Security Disability benefits.
C.R. at 14. When asked by the referee if he would have been able to work during
the weeks he sought UC benefits, Claimant replied: “No, because I have a back
injury, and my back injury is stopping me from basically performing any of my job
functions that I had, and that’s why I’m going for disability.” Id. at 70. The referee
then asked: “You are not able to work at all?” Id. Claimant replied: “Correct.” Id.
Claimant reiterated several times that he could not work at all and stated that his
disability continued as of the date of the hearing. Id. at 70-71.
The referee concluded that Claimant had not shown that he was able
and available to work. C.R. at 78. The Board agreed with the referee’s

5
determination. Id. at 100-01. Based on Claimant’s clear admission on the record
during the hearing that he was unable to do any kind of work, that his doctor had
deemed him totally disabled, and that he was applying for Social Security Disability,
the Board’s factual conclusions were supported by evidence of record, which
rebutted the presumption that Claimant was able and available to work. Rohde, 28
A.3d at 243. The Board’s conclusions also comported with the Law. Section
401(d)(1) clearly states that in order to be eligible for UC benefits, a claimant must
be able and available to work, and Claimant acknowledged that he was unable to
work at all during the time for which he sought benefits. McCurdy, 442 A.2d at
1231; see also Carter, 442 A.2d at 1248.
Moreover, Claimant’s assertions that he should receive benefits
because he previously paid into the UC system through payroll deductions and that
for him, UC benefits are warranted as a “bridge” between workers’ compensation
and Social Security Disability are meritless. Sam v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of
Rev., 528 A.2d 1067, 1068 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987); McCurdy, 442 A.2d at 1231; see
also Carter, 442 A.2d at 1248. The Law’s requirement that employees contribute to
UC benefit funding through payroll deductions does not “establish a quid pro quo
entitlement” to benefits for a claimant who has paid into the system but does not
meet the requirements set forth in Section 401, including the ability and availability
to work as required by Section 401(d)(1). See Sam, 528 A.2d at 1068.

IV. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Board’s affirmance of the
referee’s conclusion that while Claimant’s appeal was timely, he was ineligible for

6
UC benefits due to his admitted disability, was supported by substantial evidence of
record and legally correct. Accordingly, the Board’s order will be affirmed.

__________________________________
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

7
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John F. Brucker, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, : No. 1621 C.D. 2023
Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of December, 2024, the November 22, 2023, order
of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10757596. Public record. Not legal advice.