IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Paulette Casciano,
:
Petitioner
: :
v.
: :
Unemployment Compensation
:
Board of Review,
:
No. 1811 C.D. 2001
Respondent
:
Submitted: December 7, 2001
BEFORE: HONORABLE JOSEPH T. DOYLE, President Judge
1
HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McGINLEY
FILED: February 7, 2002
Paulette Casciano (Claimant) petitions for review from an order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that affirmed the referee's
denial of benefits under Section 401(c) (qualifications required to secure
compensation) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)
and ordered recoupment of a fault overpayment of $3,629.00 to Claimant.
Claimant was employed by Mercy Hospital (Employer) as a nurse for
more than fifteen years. Claimant was laid off from work on December 19, 1999.
The Board made the following pertinent findings of fact:
1. The claimant filed an application for benefits effective December 19, 1999 after being separated for reasons which were not disqualifying from Mercy Hospital.
2. The claimant filed for and received unemployment benefits for the weeks ending January 1, 2000 through and including the week ending May 6, 2000.
3. The claimant reported no earnings while filing through the PAT System for the weeks at issue.
4. The claimant during the weeks at issue, worked for Redi-Care Physicians Inc., and had gross earnings in the amount of $149.63 beginning with the week ending January 1, 2000 and in the amounts for the subsequent weeks respectively of $116.38, $190.00, $192.38, $149.63, $175.75, $213.85, $149.63, $216.13, $187.63, $190.00, $209.00, $187.63, $254.13, $239.88, $256.50, $266.00, $194.75, and $190.75.
5. The claimant did not report her earnings because she did not believe that she could live on her unemployment compensation benefits.
6. The claimant received unemployment benefits in a total amount of $3,629.00 to which she is not entitled through her own fault.
7. The claimant failed to file a proper claim when she failed to report these earnings for each week at issue.
Board's Decision, June 27, 2001, Findings of Fact Nos. 1-7 at 1-2. The Board
affirmed the referee's denial of benefits and fault overpayment.
On appeal Claimant, appearing pro se, contends that her application
for benefits was valid and that her unemployment compensation benefits were not
subject to recoupment because she was not at fault. "[T]he burden of proving
eligibility for benefits rests with the claimant." Phoenixville Area School District
v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 596 A.2d 889, 891 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1991), appeal denied, 529 Pa. 671, 605 A.2d 335 (1992).
Section 401(c) of the Law, 43 P.S. §801(c) provides that
"[c]ompensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed
and who . . . has made a valid application for benefits with respect to the benefit
year for which compensation is claimed and had made a claim for compensation in
the proper manner and on the form prescribed by the department . . . ."
In Amspacher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 479
A.2d 688 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984), Dale E. Amspacher (claimant) was employed by
Pittman Division of A.B. Chance Company (Pittman) as a hydraulic mechanic
when he was laid off on February 27, 1981, due to lack of work. "From December
1980 claimant was also employed on a part-time basis by Paval Associates, Inc.
(Paval) as a security guard . . . when . . . claimant voluntarily left his employment
[on February 28, 1981] . . . ." Id. at 689. The claimant sought unemployment
compensation benefits and listed Pittman as his last employer with no mention of
Paval. The Office of Employment Security (OES), now the UC Service Center,
granted benefits for the compensable week ending March 7, 1981, through the
compensable week ending September 26, 1981, for a total of thirty weeks. The
claimant was recalled to work by Pittman in September 1981, and was laid off for
two weeks in May and June of 1982. The claimant again sought benefits in June of
1982, and notified OES that he had eight credit weeks based upon his employment
with Paval. At this time, OES learned that the claimant quit his job at Paval on
February 28, 1981. OES determined that the claimant was ineligible for benefits
for the compensable weeks ending March 7, 1981, through September 26, 1981,
pursuant to Section 401(c) and Section 402(b (voluntary quit) of the Law. OES
also determined that the claimant had received a fault overpayment of $4,530 and
that this was subject to recoupment under Section 804(a) of the Law, 43 P.S.
§874(a). The referee affirmed and on appeal the Board affirmed.
In Amspacher, this Court addressed the claimant's responsibility to
divulge all pertinent information when an application for benefits was submitted:
A claimant seeking unemployment compensation benefits is required to divulge
to the OES all pertinent information regarding the claimant's employment status.
This information is required so that the OES may make an intelligent and informed
determination as to claimant's eligibility for benefits and computation of a
weekly benefit rate and partial benefit credit. This requirement which is
imposed upon claimants recognizes the Commonwealth's interest in unemployment
compensation and assists in fulfilling the Commonwealth's duty to protect the
unemployment
43 P.S. §802(b).
The Board modified the referee's decision to the extent that it eliminated consideration
of the Section 402(b) of the Law issue.
Here, there is no dispute that Claimant admitted she never reported
her employment with Redi-Care Physicians Inc. (Redi-Care) from January 1, 2000,
through May 6, 2000, when she filed for unemployment.
Because Claimant
withheld this information, she received full benefits instead of partial benefits.
The Board properly concluded that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under
Section 401(c) of the Law.
However, Claimant asserts that she misunderstood the question when
asked whether she was working. Claimant thought the question concerned her
employment with Mercy Hospital, not Redi-Care.
Therefore, Claimant insists
that she was without fault and recoupment of the overpayment was improper.
In Amspacher, this Court rejected a similar argument that a claimant's
omission of employment was "due to a misunderstanding of the rules" and was in
fact a mistake. Id. at 691. Here, in fact, Claimant admitted that she could not live
on her $300 monthly compensation benefit. N.T. at 3. In unemployment
compensation proceedings, the Board is the ultimate fact-finding body empowered
to determine the credibility of witnesses and to determine the weight to be
accorded to evidence. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Wright,
347 A.2d 328 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975).
Section 804(a) of the Law, 43 P.S. §874(a) provides that [a]ny person
who by reason of his fault has received any sum as compensation under this act to
which he was not entitled, shall be liable to repay to the Unemployment
Compensation Fund to the credit of the Compensation Account a sum equal to the
amount so received by him and interest at the rate determined by the Secretary of
Revenue . . . ." "The word 'fault' within the meaning of Section 804(a) connotes
an act to which blame, censure, impropriety, short coming or culpability attaches."
Teitell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 546 A.2d 706, 710 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1988).
Claimant failed to truthfully report her employment with Redi-Care
and acknowledged that she did so because she believed the unemployment benefits
were inadequate to live on. This admission established the requisite fault to
support the assessment of the overpayment.
Accordingly, we affirm.
____________________________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge