Do whatever you want with a Pa Uc 44fr Form: fill, sign, print and send online instantly. Securely download your document with other editable templates, any. Forms UC-2/2B,2A, or on the ‘Pennsylvania Enterprise Registration Form’, Form Financial Determination’, Form UCFR, and ‘Decision on Request for Relief. 2. Notices of Financial Determination (UCF(3)), Requests for Relief from Charges (UCFR), and determinations on requests for relief from charges ( Form.
|Published (Last):||4 February 2009|
|PDF File Size:||3.70 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.94 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
In this appeal, Kevin K. Bleacher Claimantrepresenting himself, asks whether the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review Board erred in denying him unemployment benefits. The Board denied benefits under Section e of the Unemployment Compensation Law 1 Law relating to willful misconduct on the ground Claimant knowingly falsified an employment application. Claimant does not challenge the Board’s findings or determinations on the merits.
Rather, he argues Kelly Services’ Employer failure to appeal a UC service center’s initial determination regarding his financial eligibility for benefits rendered untimely Employer’s subsequent appeal of the UC service center’s separate, substantive eligibility determination.
Discerning no merit in this assertion, we affirm. Because Claimant limits his appeal to the issue of the timeliness of Employer’s appeal of an initial service center determination, a detailed discussion of the facts regarding Claimant’s separation from employment is unnecessary. By way of brief background, Claimant worked for Employer, a staffing agency, from March until January Employer discharged Claimant after an investigation revealed Claimant falsified his employment application.
Claimant subsequently applied for unemployment benefits. Apparently, the local UC service center issued a notice of financial determination that found Claimant financially eligible for unemployment benefits. In addition, a UC service center subsequently issued a notice of determination in which it stated Claimant was substantively eligible for unemployment benefits. A hearing ensued before a referee.
At hearing, 44rf asserted Employer’s appeal from the UC service center to the referee was untimely from Employer did not appeal the initial notice of financial determination. Ultimately, the referee issued a decision in which he first noted there was no issue regarding the timeliness of Employer’s appeal because “the Notice of Financial Determination, even if forrm to the employer, is a notice of financial eligibility without regard to the merits of a separation.
Only after a claimant 44dr financially eligible is the employer sent paperwork related to separation. As to 44ffr merits, the referee determined Claimant committed willful misconduct by knowingly falsifying his employment application. Claimant appealed to the Board. Adopting and incorporating the referee’s findings and conclusions, the Board affirmed the denial of benefits.
Claimant appealed to this Court. On fom, 3 Claimant argues Employer’s failure to appeal the initial notice of financial determination renders untimely Employer’s appeal of the subsequent notice of determination, which addressed the merits of Claimant’s separation from employment. The Board responds this Court should quash Claimant’s petition for review and brief because Claimant raises no issues regarding the Board’s order affirming the referee and denying benefits under Section e of the Law.
The Board argues Claimant’s sole contention is that Employer’s “failure” to appeal the financial determination here fomr untimely Employer’s appeal of the merits determination.
However, the Board contends, Employer had no reason to argue Claimant had insufficient wages in his base year based upon his high quarter. The Board further asserts Claimant does not challenge the Board’s decision on the merits; thus, Claimant waived his right to argue the Board erred in denying benefits under Section e of the Law.
As a result, the Board argues we should dismiss Claimant’s appeal. Rejecting Claimant’s assertion that Employer’s failure to appeal the service center’s initial financial eligibility determination rendered untimely Employer’s appeal of the subsequent merits determination, the referee, whose decision was adopted by the Board, explained:.
uc 44fr form –
First and foremost, the notice of financial determination, which Claimant argues Employer failed to properly appeal, is not contained in the certified record.
We may not consider the incomplete copy of the notice of financial determination appended to Claimant’s brief. Because the document upon which Claimant bases his sole argument is not part of the certified record, appellate review of this issue is significantly hindered.
In any event, Employer’s failure to appeal the initial notice of financial determinationdoes not bar Employer’s timely appeal of the separate, subsequently issued notice of determinationwhich found Claimant eligible for benefits based on his separation from Employer.
Clerk 2 (Up to 2 Positions) REVISED
See Certified Record C. As explained more fully below, Claimant’s argument confuses the initial notice of financial determination with the separately issued notice of determination.
By way of background, after a claimant applies for unemployment benefits, a notice of financial Determination, Form UCF, is generated by the local service center. The notice of financial determination indicates whether a claimant received sufficient wages to be eligible for benefits and establishes the benefit rate and maximum amount of compensation payable to a claimant. See Section a of the Law, 43 P. As its title indicates, the notice of financial determination is limited to a determination of a claimant’s financial eligibility only.
Either the claimant or the employer may dispute this financial determination by filing an appeal. A determination of financial eligibility is the first stepin determining overall eligibility for unemployment benefits. In addition to a financial determination, the local service center determines whether the substantive circumstances surrounding a claimant’s separation from employment render him eligible for benefits. This determination process begins with the mailing to the employer of a copy of the part of the claimant’s application, entitled “Employer’s Notice of Application Request for Separation and Wage Information.
The employer is required to complete this form and return it to the service center. If the claimant and the employer are in dispute as to the reasons for or circumstances surrounding the separation from employment, the service center claims examiner attempts to gather further information.
The UC claims examiner subsequently issues a notice of determinationUC Form, which addresses a claimant’s eligibility for benefits based on his separation from employment. See Dep’t of Cmty.
An appeal from an adverse UC service center determination must be filed within 15 days of the date the determination was mailed. See Section e of the Law, 43 P. Here, a service center claims examiner issued a notice of determination that found Claimant eligible for benefits under Section e of the Law. The notice of determination indicated the “final day to timely appeal this determination is July 06, Employer timely appealed the notice of determination on June 26,asserting it discharged Claimant jc on his falsification of an employment application.
Employer’s appeal did not raise any issue concerning Claimant’s financial eligibility. A hearing before a referee ensued on the primary issue of whether Claimant committed disqualifying misconduct.
Ultimately, the referee and, on further appeal the Board, determined Claimant was not eligible for benefits under Section e fkrm the Law because he committed willful misconduct. In short, Employer timely appealed the service center’s initial notice of determination that Claimant was substantively, as opposed to financially, eligible for benefits.
Employer’s alleged failure to appeal the service center’s financial eligibility determination does fkrm preclude its timely appeal of the service center’s subsequent, substantive eligibility determination.
Thus, Claimant’s argument fails. Further, Claimant disputes neither the Board’s findings nor its determination that he committed willful misconduct and is, therefore, ineligible for benefits under Section e of the Law. As such, these issues are waived. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited.
Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. View Case Cited Cases. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.
Act of December 5,Second Ex. Comments Characters Remaining. Reply Flag as Offensive. Cited Cases No Gorm Found.