# Harmon v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 26, 2019 · 207 A.3d 292

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9888404

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel HARMON, Appellant v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 26, 2019
- **Citations:** 207 A.3d 292
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Dougherty, Saylor, Donohue, Wecht, Mundy
- **Cited by:** 33 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/9888404

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that there are “two types of agency interpretations which are accorded different levels of deference,” i.e. published rules and regulations versus “guidance documents” like manuals, policy statements, and advisories
- observing that precedent permits granting “some measure of value to [agency] interpretations under certain circumstances”

## Opinion text

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR, Concurring
I join the majority opinion, except for the treatment of deference due to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. See Majority Opinion at 300-01. In this regard, I believe that some consideration should be given to the Board's adjudicative role at the time it proffered its interpretation of the governing statute. See, e.g. , Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Ahlborn , 547 U.S. 268 , 292, 126 S.Ct. 1752 , 1767, 164 L.Ed.2d 459 (2006) (explaining that "agency adjudications typically warrant deference"); accord ARIPPA v. PUC , 792 A.2d 636 , 660 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (noting that deference is due to an agency's interpretation of a statute rendered while acting in an expert capacity during the course of an adjudication). Such a role seems less likely than that of an adversarial litigant to incentivize administrative agencies to "adopt positions arbitrarily and/or based on interests unrelated to ... legislative intent[.]" Huntley & Huntley v. Borough of Oakmont , 600 Pa. 207 , 229, 964 A.2d 855 , 868 (2009).
A pervading question in this field, of course, is how much deference is due in any given context. For present purposes, I find that the majority's able analysis of the relevant statute is substantially more persuasive than the reasoning supplied by the Board and surpasses the weight of the deference that I would accord. Further, and relatedly, the particular statutory-interpretation issue raised in the present matter only modestly implicates agency expertise.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9888404. Public record. Not legal advice.