Kear v. Commonwealth

397 A.2d 468, 40 Pa. Commw. 346, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1263
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 8, 1979
DocketAppeal, No. 2297 C.D. 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 397 A.2d 468 (Kear v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kear v. Commonwealth, 397 A.2d 468, 40 Pa. Commw. 346, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1263 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinions

Opinion by

Judge DiSalle,

This is an appeal by Philip Kear (Claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) disallowing his appeal from a referee’s denial of benefits. The case was originally heard by a three-judge panel and was subsequently re-argued before the Court en Bane.

For purposes of this appeal, Claimant last worked on December 31, 1971. The following month, he went to the local office of the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) to apply for benefits. Although he was in fact eligible, a Bureau employee told him he was not, and refused to allow him to fill out an application

Claimant learned of the mistake in May of 1976, and immediately requested the benefits he should have received in January, 1972. The referee found that although the Bureau erroneously refused to accept the application, Regulation 65.41(c) (5)1 prohibits the pre[348]*348dating of a claim for benefits more than 52 weeks after the refusal of a local office to accept an application— where such refusal results from error or mistake — and this rendered Claimant ineligible. The Board affirmed.

We agree with Claimant that the 52 week rule would not bar recovery if the Bureau’s action amounted to something more than mere error or mistake: that is, gross negligence or wilful and wanton misrepresentation amounting to fraud. Here, however, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Bureau employee’s misconduct was anything other than the giving of wrong advice. Given the complexity of the issue of Claimant’s eligibility in 1972,2 and given the fact that Claimant, after being denied an application, simply “assumed” he was ineligible and made no further demand for one, we cannot agree that the employee committed anything other than an error.

We must also disagree with Claimant’s characterization of his 1976 application for benefits as merely a request to have his 1972 claim honored, as opposed to an attempt to predate his claim. The fact of the matter is that Claimant, for whatever reason, failed to ap[349]*349ply for benefits in 1972. There simply was no claim made then which he can now enforce.

Finally, Claimant argues that Regulation 65.41(c) (5) is inconsistent with the purposes of the Unemployment Compensation Law.3 We disagree. While the Bureau certainly has no statutory authority to refuse to accept an application for benefits, the Board may, in the interests of administrative convenience and practicality, promulgate reasonable restrictions on the predating of claims in the event of employee error or mistake. We hold that the 52 week limitation is not unreasonable and will affirm.

Order

And Now, this 8th day of February, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated November 26, 1976, affirming the referee’s denial of benefits to Philip Kear, is hereby affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Department of Economic & Employment Development v. Lilley
666 A.2d 921 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1995)
Sturni v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
625 A.2d 727 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
Wells v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
513 A.2d 235 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1986)
Edwards v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
426 A.2d 237 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
397 A.2d 468, 40 Pa. Commw. 346, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kear-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1979.