# Greene v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · March 10, 2017 · 157 A.3d 983

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873094

## Case

- **Full name:** Kenneth GREENE, Petitioner v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 10, 2017
- **Citations:** 157 A.3d 983; 2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 70; 2017 WL 943242
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cosgrove
- **Judges:** Simpson, Cosgrove, Leadbetter
- **Cited by:** 14 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/9873094

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that “almost all the cases where a nunc pro tunc appeal was allowed involve statements attributed to compensation authorities after the issuance of a notice of determination and during the period when an appeal is allowed

## Opinion text

DISSENTING OPINION BY
JUDGE COSGROVE
While I recognize the thoughtful analysis offered by the Majority, I must dissent. The question of whether permission to appeal nunc pro tunc should be granted is one which lies in equity. See Bass v. Bureau of Corrections, 485 Pa. 256 , 401 A.2d 1133 (1979); see also, Schofield v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 828 A.2d 510, 512 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). At its core, this is a simple matter of fairness. There is no question in this case that misleading information by a governmental entity was provided to Claimant Kenneth Greene. This information, at the very least, influenced (if not outright controlled) Claimant’s decision making process, and created an impediment to the timely filing of the appeal. Submitting the equitable question to the standard employed by the Majority places such a noose around it as to choke it of all sense of fairness. As I would reverse the decision below, I am compelled, respectfully, to dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873094. Public record. Not legal advice.