S. Stridiron v. UCBR

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Shanann Stridiron, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 429 C.D. 2024

: Submitted: February 4, 2025

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge (P.)

HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE WALLACE FILED: April 29, 2025

Shanann Stridiron (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of the April 3, 2024

order (Order) of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which

affirmed the Unemployment Compensation Referee’s (Referee) corresponding

decision (Decision) dismissing Claimant’s appeals from 11 Notices of

Determinations (collectively, Determinations)1 issued by the Unemployment

1

The Decision at Referee’s docket number 2023008174-AT also addressed Determinations at

Referee’s docket numbers 2023008175-AT, 2023008176-AT, 2023008177-AT, 2023008183-AT,

2023008185-AT, 2023008186-AT, 2023008187-AT, 2023008188-AT, 2023008189-AT, and

2023008190-AT. Certified Record (C.R.) at 267. Claimant appealed the Referee’s Decision at

docket number 2023008174-AT. Id. at 289. The Referee’s Decision at docket number

2023008199-AT contained docket numbers 2023008199-AT, 2023008200-AT, 2023008202-AT,

(Footnote continued on next page…)

Compensation Service Center (UC Service Center). The Referee’s Decision

dismissed Claimant’s appeals of the Determinations as untimely under Section

501(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).2 After careful review, we

affirm.

BACKGROUND

Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits effective

December 27, 2020. Certified Record (C.R.) at 3. On April 3, 2023, the Department

of Labor and Industry (Department) issued 18 Determinations finding Claimant

ineligible for federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)3 and Federal

Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC)4 benefits, both under the

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,5 and finding

Claimant ineligible for federal Lost Wages Assistance (LWA) under the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.6 Id. at 170-99. The Board

2023008202-AT, 2023008203-AT, 2023008204-AT, and 2023008205-AT. C.R. at 267. Claimant

did not appeal the Referee’s Decision at docket number 2023008199-AT. See id at 289. Therefore,

the Referee’s Decision regarding the corresponding Determinations at docket number

2023008199-AT are not before us in this appeal.

2

Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 821(e).

3

“PUA provides up to 79 weeks of benefits to qualifying individuals who are otherwise able to

work and available to work within the meaning of applicable state law, except that they are

unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work due to COVID-19 related

reasons . . . .” Office of Unemployment Compensation, Pennsylvania’s Pandemic Unemployment

Assistant Portal, https://pua.benefits.uc.pa.gov/vosnet/Default.aspx (last visited April 14, 2025).

4

15 U.S.C. § 9023(f).

5

15 U.S.C. § 9021(h).

6

42 U.S.C. § 5174(e)(2).

2

assessed $43,308.75 in fraudulent overpayments with penalties7 to Claimant. Id. at

209.

On May 16, 2023, Claimant appealed the Determinations to the Referee. Id.

at 201-38. The Referee conducted a telephone hearing on June 23, 2023. Id. at 265.

Claimant participated in the hearing pro se and was the sole witness to testify. Id.

at 265-67. In relevant part, the Referee asked Claimant why she did not file an

appeal by the deadline stated on the Determinations. Id. Claimant did not dispute

she received the Determinations by electronic mail (email), which was the method

she chose for notifications. Id. at 269-70. Additionally, Claimant did not dispute

that she failed to appeal on time. Id. at 270. Instead, Claimant testified “I’m not

going to lie, I thought they was [sic] bogus.” Id. Claimant conceded her assumption

that the Determinations were “bogus” was incorrect. Id. Claimant also testified she

was not able to log in to her PUA website portal until after the April 24, 2023 appeal

deadline passed. Id. She indicated that once she was able to log in, she completed

the appeal paperwork and sent it by facsimile to the Board. Id.

After the hearing, the Referee issued the following findings in his Decision:

1. On April 3, 2023, 11 Determinations were issued denying the

Claimant [PUA], [FPUC], & [LWA] benefits, along with fraud

overpayments & penalties.

7

Specifically, the Determinations assessed $14,625.00 fraudulent PUA overpayment with a 15%

penalty of $2,193.75, $21,000.00 fraudulent FPUC overpayment with a 15% penalty of $3,150.00,

and a $1,800.00 LWA overpayment with a 15% penalty of $270.00 for a total amount of

$43,308.75. C.R. at 209. We note the Department appears to have miscalculated the amount of

the LWA overpayment as the outstanding principal amount of $1,800.00 plus the 15% penalty of

$270.00 equals $2,070.00, not $2,340.00. Adding $2,070.00 to the other overpayments and

penalties results in an outstanding overpayment of $43,038.75.

3

2. Copies of these Determinations were emailed to the Claimant’s last

known email address on the above date and provided in the

Claimant’s PUA website portal.

3. The Claimant chose email as her preferred notification method.

4. The Claimant received the Determinations but thought they were

“bogus.”

5. The Determinations informed the Claimant that she had until April

24, 2023, to file an appeal if the Claimant disagreed with the

determination.

6. The Claimant faxed her appeal with a fax banner date of May 16,

2023.

7. The Claimant was not misinformed nor in any way misled regarding

the right of appeal or the need to appeal.

Id. at 276. With those findings, the Referee dismissed Claimant’s appeals as

untimely under Section 501(e) of the Law. Id. at 278. The Referee noted he lacked

jurisdiction to consider an appeal filed after the expiration of the statutory appeal

period. Id. at 277. Additionally, the Referee noted Claimant’s negligence in

ignoring the Determinations did not extend the appeal deadline. Id. Therefore, the

Referee dismissed Claimant’s appeals.

Claimant appealed the Referee’s Decision to the Board. Id. at 285-87. In its

Order, the Board adopted and incorporated the Referee’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law. Id. at 294-95. The Board noted Claimant “clearly received the

emails notifying her about the [Determinations], and failed to file a timely appeal[,]”

and remarked that “[c]onfusion is not adequate grounds to allow the appeal to

proceed.” Id. at 295. Accordingly, the Board determined Claimant’s appeals were

untimely and affirmed the Referee’s Decision. Id.

4

Claimant now appeals the Board’s Order to this Court. On appeal, Claimant

challenges the Board’s dismissal of her appeals as untimely, as well as the

overpayment assessments.8 See generally Claimant’s Br. The Board argues it

properly dismissed Claimant’s appeals of the Determinations as untimely because

Claimant did not appeal until after the deadline to do so expired. Board’s Br. at 4.

Additionally, the Board contends Claimant’s late appeals were due to her own

negligence in failing to review the Determinations and her mistaken belief that the

Determinations were “bogus.” Id. Therefore, the Board asserts Claimant failed to

demonstrate entitlement to nunc pro tunc relief. Id.

DISCUSSION

This Court reviews unemployment compensation orders for violations of the

claimant’s constitutional rights, violations of agency practice and procedure, and

other errors of law. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. We also review whether substantial evidence

supports the findings of fact necessary to sustain the decision. Id.

The sole issue before this Court is whether Claimant filed a timely appeal

from the Determinations. Section 501(e) of the Law directs that a claimant must file

an appeal of a determination within 21 days after the “Determination Date” provided

on the notice of determination. 43 P.S. § 821(e). A party’s failure to file an appeal

within the appeal deadline renders a determination final and divests a referee of

jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal. Id.; Hessou v. Unemployment Comp.

8

In the Statement of Questions Involved section of her Brief, Claimant states:

I. I am asking the court to look at the [e]vidence [t]hat I have provided, and

that will show I don’t owe any money.

II. My hearing ke[pt] getting [d]enied, [b]ecause they said I didn’t put my

paper[]work in on time, [b]ut the[y are] not [t]rying to hear my reason.

Claimant’s Br. at 4.

5

Bd. of Rev., 942 A.2d 194, 197-98 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). However, under

extraordinary circumstances, a referee may consider an untimely appeal where the

party seeking to file the late appeal demonstrates entitlement to nunc pro tunc relief.

Roman-Hutchinson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 972 A.2d 1286, 1288 n.1

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). An appeal nunc pro tunc may be allowed where a party can

demonstrate the delay in filing the appeal was caused by fraud, a breakdown in the

administrative process, or non-negligent circumstances. Carney v. Unemployment

Comp. Bd. of Rev., 181 A.3d 1286, 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citation omitted). A

party carries a heavy burden to justify an untimely appeal. Id.

Here, the Determinations informed Claimant that she had 21 days from the

date of the Determinations, or until April 24, 2023, to file a timely appeal. Claimant

did not file an appeal by that date. The Department received Claimant’s appeal via

facsimile on May 16, 2023, which was 22 days after the appeal deadline. Claimant

argues that while she received the Determinations, she initially thought they were

“bogus,” but once she discovered the Determinations were valid, she appealed. See

generally Claimant’s Br.; C.R. at 270. However, Claimant’s subjective

misunderstanding regarding the validity of the Determinations is insufficient cause

for a late appeal. See Williamson v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing,

129 A.3d 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (holding a licensee’s misunderstanding regarding

the appeal language in a notice of license suspension cannot justify an extension of

the statutory appeal period). Claimant failed to demonstrate that fraud, a breakdown

in the administrative process, or non-negligent circumstances beyond Claimant’s

control caused her late appeals. Accordingly, Claimant is not entitled to nunc pro

tunc relief. Substantial evidence in the record supports the Board’s findings that

Claimant failed to timely appeal the Determinations to the Referee.

6

CONCLUSION

Claimant did not appeal within 21 days of the Determinations, and

consequently, her appeals were untimely. Additionally, Claimant failed to establish

entitlement to nunc pro tunc relief. Accordingly, the Board did not err, and we

affirm the Board’s order dismissing Claimant’s appeals as untimely under Section

501(e) of the Law.

______________________________

STACY WALLACE, Judge

7

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Shanann Stridiron, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 429 C.D. 2024

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of April 2025, the April 3, 2024 order of the

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.

______________________________

STACY WALLACE, Judge