telephonic hearing in Pennsylvania

2023Because “[i]ssues raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal . . .[,] the propriety of the telephone hearing itself may not be challenged.” Hoover v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 509 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).

1992Hoover v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 97 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 414, 509 A.2d 962 (1986).

2026The Board, relying on this Court’s decision in Guat Gnoh Ho v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 874, 875 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), reasoned that Claimant lacked good cause for his nonappearance because he did not take any reasonable steps to ascertain the contents of the Department’s mailings, request a continuance, or otherwise appear at the telephonic hearing.

2024However, Applicant has failed to preserve any appellate issues for our review regarding the merits of his Marketplace Eligibility Appeal by failing to prosecute his appeal at the telephonic hearing before the Presiding Officer, and by failing to ask Pennie to vacate the Dismissal Order based on good cause for his failure to attend the telephonic hearing.5 See, e.g., Pa.R.A.P. 1551(a) (“Only questions raised before the government unit shall be heard or considered, except: (1) Questions involving the validity of a statute[;] (2) Questions involving the jurisdiction of the government unit over th

2024Dowler v. Public School Employes’ Retirement Board, [ 620 A.2d 639 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)].”); see also Diskin Enterprises, Inc. v. State Board of Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers & Salespersons (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2389 C.D. 2003, filed December 7, 2004), slip op. at 6 n.8 (“Generally, this court will not consider any question that was not raised before the government unit unless (1) the question involves the validity of a statute, (2) the question involves the government unit’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the adjudication, or (3) this court is satisfied that the petitioner could not, by t

1987Under such circumstances, we do not believe that the referee was obligated to continue the hearing or to conduct a telephonic hearing. “[I]t is no abuse of a referees discretion to refuse a party’s telephonic request for a continuance made just before a scheduled hearing and at a time moreover when his adversary is actually on the way to the hearing place.” Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 419, 422 , 393 A.2d 514, 515 (1978).

1987Under such circumstances, we do not believe that the referee was obligated to continue the hearing or to conduct a telephonic hearing. “[I]t is no abuse of a referees discretion to refuse a party’s telephonic request for a continuance made just before a scheduled hearing and at a time moreover when his adversary is actually on the way to the hearing place.” Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 419, 422 , 393 A.2d 514, 515 (1978).