“At the appellate level, a party's failure to include analysis and relevant authority results in waiver.”
How later courts described this case
- “At the appellate level, a party's failure to include analysis and relevant authority results in waiver.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Carol S. Cellini, :
Petitioner :
: No. 1575 C.D. 2023
v. :
: Submitted: May 6, 2025
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE DUMAS FILED: June 27, 2025
Carol S. Cellini (Claimant), proceeding pro se, has petitioned this Court
to review the adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
(Board), which affirmed a Referee’s decision that Claimant was ineligible for
pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) benefits1 or federal pandemic
unemployment compensation (FPUC) benefits.2 Upon review, we affirm.
1
Pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) benefits are provided under Section 2102 of the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (CARES Act), 15 U.S.C. § 9021.
2
The FPUC program provided eligible individuals additional supplemental benefits. See 15
U.S.C. § 9023.
I. BACKGROUND3
In August 2019, Claimant was laid off from her employment and
thereafter awarded regular unemployment compensation (UC) benefits for 26 weeks.
After exhausting her regular UC benefits, Claimant became eligible for pandemic
emergency unemployment compensation (PEUC) benefits.4
Nevertheless, in February 2020, Claimant applied for PUA benefits. In
her application, Claimant selected email as her preferred method of notification and
provided a personal email address. Over 12 weeks, Claimant received $5,768 in
PUA benefits. Additionally, in the last 5 of those 12 weeks, Claimant received
$3,000 in FPUC benefits.
In November 2022, the UC Service Center determined that Claimant
was ineligible for these benefits because she had been eligible for either regular UC
or PEUC benefits. Claimant timely appealed.
In December 2022, a Referee held a telephonic hearing, but Claimant
failed to appear.5 Thereafter, based on the documentary evidence of record, the
Referee determined that Claimant was ineligible for either PUA or FPUC benefits.
Finding no evidence of fraud, the Referee further found a non-fraud overpayment to
Claimant in the amount of $8,768.
3
Unless stated otherwise, we adopt this background from the Referee’s decision, which was
adopted by the Board, and which is supported by substantial evidence of record. See Bd.’s Order,
11/28/23; Referee’s Dec., 12/30/22.
4
PEUC benefits are provided under Section 2107 of the CARES Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9025. It
was provided to individuals who, in pertinent part, “exhausted all rights to regular compensation
under State law or Federal law with respect to a benefit year . . . and are able to work, available to
work, and actively seeking work.” See 15 U.S.C. § 9025(a)(2)(A),(D).
5
The Referee twice attempted to contact Claimant at her phone number of record, but
Claimant did not answer. See Hr’g Tr., 12/30/22, at 1-2.
2
Claimant timely appealed the Referee’s decision. The Board remanded
for an additional hearing to ascertain the reason for Claimant’s failure to appear, as
well as for any new or additional evidence on the merits. The Board further
cautioned, however, that it would not consider Claimant’s substantive evidence if
she could not establish a proper cause for her nonappearance.
In July 2023, the Referee held a second telephonic hearing, at which
Claimant testified. Claimant explained that she was absent from the first hearing
because she had missed the hearing notice in her email and, further, suggested that
she should have received a hard-copy notice of a mandatory hearing.6 The Board
did not credit this explanation as good cause for Claimant’s nonappearance.
Accordingly, the Board did not consider any testimony or evidence on the merits,
adopted the Referee’s findings, and affirmed the Referee’s decision. Claimant
timely appealed to this Court.
II. ISSUES
Claimant has identified two issues for our consideration.7 First,
Claimant challenges the Board’s decision to deny her PUA benefits based on her
6
Claimant explained as follows:
Well, the simple truth is I didn't know I had a hearing, and I don't understand if I
was mandated for this hearing, and if I had this hearing, why this wasn't sent to me
by hard copy. So I didn't even know I had the hearing or believe me, I would've
been on the hearing.
Hr’g Tr., 7/25/23, at 3.
7
Claimant’s arguments to this Court suffer from a lack of development. Indeed, there is no
clearly defined argument section in her brief. See generally Claimant’s Br. Her arguments appear
in the form of a letter addressed to this Court and lack any citations to legal authority or references
to the certified record. Accordingly, she risks waiver. See Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a) (“The argument
shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head
of each part . . . the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.”); Commonwealth v. Spotz, 716 A.2d 580, 585 n.5 (Pa. 1998)
3
failure to appear at the first telephonic hearing rather than the validity of her claim.
See Claimant’s Br. at 8-9 (unpaginated). Second, Claimant questions “the
underlying basis” of the Board’s decision “retracting” her PUA benefits, particularly
following the initial approval of her benefits. Id. at 8. Most notably, Claimant states,
“If true [i.e., if Claimant was ineligible for PUA,] why did the [UC Service Center]
approve me? Why has it taken 2.5 years for PUA to retract?” Id. at 11.
In response, the Board maintains that Claimant lacked good cause for
her nonappearance at the first telephonic hearing. See Bd.’s Br. at 5-7. Therefore,
according to the Board, it properly disregarded Claimant’s testimony and evidence
on the merits of her PUA claim and considered only the documentary evidence of
record. See id. Further, based on that documentary evidence, Claimant remained
eligible for PEUC benefits, which rendered her ineligible for PUA benefits. See id.
at 9.
III. DISCUSSION8
In her first issue, Claimant challenges the Board’s determination that
she was ineligible for PUA benefits.9 See Claimant’s Br. at 8-9. “[T]he PUA
(holding that failure to develop issue in appellate brief results in waiver); Browne v. Dep’t of
Transp., 843 A.2d 429, 435 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (“At the appellate level, a party's failure to include
analysis and relevant authority results in waiver.”). Nevertheless, because we are generally
inclined to construe pro se filings liberally, we decline to find waiver in this case. See, e.g.,
Richardson v. Pa. Ins. Dep’t, 54 A.3d 420, 425-29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
8
This Court’s review is limited to “determining whether necessary findings of fact were
supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether
constitutional rights were violated.” Pierce-Boyce v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 289 A.3d
130, 135 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). Additionally, the Board is the ultimate fact finder and
empowered to make credibility determinations. See McCarthy v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of
Rev., 829 A.2d 1266, 1269-70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). Properly supported, the Board’s findings of
fact are conclusive on appeal. Id. at 1270.
9
We note that Claimant does not challenge the Board’s adjudication regarding her FPUC
eligibility. See generally Pet’r’s Br.
4
program was created to provide temporary income assistance to individuals who are
unemployed due to specified COVID-19 pandemic-related reasons . . . .” Kozicki v.
Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 299 A.3d 1055, 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023). To
qualify for PUA benefits under the CARES Act, a claimant must be a “covered
individual.” 15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(A). In relevant part, a covered individual
“means an individual who . . . is not eligible for regular compensation or extended
benefits under State or Federal law or pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation . . . .” Id. § 9021(a)(3)(A)(i).
Initially, we reject Claimant’s assertion that she was denied PUA
benefits based on her nonappearance for the telephonic hearing. Rather, the record
reflects that she was denied benefits because she failed to meet the statutory
requirements for eligibility. See Determination, 11/15/2022. Here, the UC Service
Center determined that Claimant was ineligible for PUA benefits because she had
exhausted her regular UC benefits but remained eligible for PEUC benefits. See
Claim Information, Other Program Eligibility.10 The Board accepted this
documentary evidence to establish that Claimant was not a “covered individual”
qualified to receive PUA benefits. See Bd.’s Order, 11/28/23 (adopting Referee’s
Dec., 12/30/22). Absent credited evidence to the contrary, we discern no error in the
Board’s decision.11 See 15 U.S.C § 9021(a)(3)(A)(i); see also McCarthy, 829 A.2d
at 1270.
10
This documentation may be found in the agency record at pp. 16-17, also identified as Ex.
UC 065-066.
11
To the extent Claimant has directed our attention to substantive evidence not of record, see
generally Pet’r’s Br., this Court has previously issued an order declining to consider this evidence.
See Mem. & Order, 3/25/25.
5
Claimant also challenges the UC Service Center’s efforts to reclaim
benefits more than two years after she first received them. See Claimant’s Br. at 11.
However, this claim, too, is without merit.
It is well settled that this Commonwealth, through its Department of
Labor and Industry (Department), has a “duty to protect the unemployment
compensation fund against dissipation by those not entitled to benefits under the
law.” Amspacher v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 479 A.2d 688, 691 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1984); see Section 201(a) of the UC Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second
Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 761(a) (providing that the
Department may conduct investigations to enforce UC Law). This duty extends to
federal programs administered by the Department. For example, “in the case of
individuals who have received amounts of [PUA] to which they were not entitled,
the [Commonwealth] shall require such individuals to repay the amounts of such
[PUA] to the [Department] . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 9021(d)(4). Importantly, there is no
relevant time limitation on the recovery of PUA funds. See id.; Unemployment Ins.
Program Letter No. 20-21, Change 1 (U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Feb. 7, 2022), p.19.12
Here, following an investigation, the UC Service Center determined
that Claimant was ineligible to receive PUA benefits. See Disqualifying
Determination, 11/15/22. It then documented a PUA overpayment to Claimant of
$5,768. See Payment Summ., 12/9/22.13 Accordingly, it was required to recover the
amount of those benefits from Claimant.14 15 U.S.C. § 9021(d)(4).
12
See https://www.dol.gov/index.php/agencies/eta/advisories/unemployment-insurance-
program-letter-no-20-21-change-1 (last visited 6/26/2025).
13
This document may be found in the agency record at p. 13, also identified as Ex. UC 062.
14
State agencies are permitted to waive repayments if the compensation was “without fault
on the part of” the Claimant and “such repayment would be contrary to equity and good
conscience.” See 15 U.S.C. § 9025(e)(2). However, this Court has established that a request for
6
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s decision.
LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
waiver of repayment must be decided in a separate proceeding. See Rouse v. Unemployment Comp.
Bd. of Rev., 41 A.3d 211, 213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). Claimant may request waiver of repayment by
submitting the appropriate form to the Department. See id. If the Department denies the waiver
request, an appeal can be taken. Id.
7
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Carol S. Cellini, :
Petitioner :
: No. 1575 C.D. 2023
v. :
:
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2025, the order entered by the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review on November 28, 2023, is
AFFIRMED.
LORI A. DUMAS, Judge