A.J. Snell v. UCBR

Citation: Not availableDocket: 109 C.D. 2019

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; August 8, 2019; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Amy J. Snell, the petitioner, sought judicial review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s (UCBR) December 31, 2018 order, which upheld a Referee's decision denying her unemployment compensation (UC) benefits under Sections 401(d)(1) and 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Key issues included whether the UCBR erred in finding Snell ineligible for benefits and in denying her request for reconsideration.

Snell had worked full-time as a Medical Management Nurse II and voluntarily left her job on July 6, 2018, to care for her husband, who suffered from strokes and required constant supervision. She applied for UC benefits, claiming her inability to work was due to her caregiving responsibilities. The Altoona UC Service Center initially denied her benefits, determining she was eligible under Section 402(b) but ineligible under Section 401(d)(1). 

After a hearing scheduled for October 12, 2018, where neither party appeared, the Referee concluded there was insufficient evidence that Snell had a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving her job or that she was able and available for work. Consequently, the Referee reversed the eligibility finding under Section 402(b) and affirmed the ineligibility under Section 401(d)(1). Snell contended her caregiving role prevented her from being available for work, while the Employer opted not to participate in the hearing. Ultimately, the court affirmed the UCBR's decision.

On October 19, 2018, the Claimant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR), asserting she did not receive the Initial Hearing Notice and requested a reopening of her case for a new hearing. The UCBR scheduled a Remand Hearing for November 28, 2018, sending notice to the Claimant, who again did not appear. On December 31, 2018, the UCBR upheld the Referee’s Decision, citing the Claimant's failure to demonstrate valid reasons for missing the Initial Hearing. 

On January 5, 2019, the Claimant filed a Reconsideration Request, claiming she received the Remand Hearing Notice only on the date of the hearing due to mail delivery errors. The UCBR denied this request on January 30, 2019. The Claimant subsequently appealed to the court, arguing her inability to attend the hearings was due to lack of notice and asserting her eligibility for unemployment compensation (UC) based on her availability to work and personal circumstances involving her husband's medical condition.

While the Claimant acknowledged receiving the Remand Hearing Notice on November 28, 2018, she did not notify the UCBR about her absence until January 5, 2019, 38 days post-hearing. The UCBR contended this delay violated Section 101.24(a) of its regulations regarding reopening hearings. However, Section 101.24(d) allows for a request for reopening if made within 15 days of the UCBR’s decision being mailed, which the Claimant did on January 5, 2019. Consequently, the UCBR accepted her request as a reconsideration, in accordance with its regulations.

The Court reviews an agency's denial of a reconsideration request for abuse of discretion, defined as misapplication of law, manifestly unreasonable judgment, or bias. In this case, the Claimant argued she did not receive notice of a remand hearing due to mail issues. However, she failed to contact the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) to report this until 38 days after receiving the notice, despite being aware of the importance of timely communication, as evidenced by her prompt appeal of a previous decision. The Court noted that the Claimant only claimed not to have received the two hearing notices, and since she did not appear at either hearing, the UCBR correctly found she did not prove her eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. Consequently, the Court affirmed the UCBR's December 31, 2018 order.