scheduled hearing in Pennsylvania

2023Nevertheless, Section 101.24(a) states: If a party who did not attend a scheduled hearing subsequently gives written notice, which is received by the tribunal prior to the release of a decision, and it is determined by the tribunal that h[er] failure to attend the hearing was for reasons which constitute “proper cause,” the case shall be reopened. 34 Pa. Code §101.24 (a); see also McNeill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 511 A.2d 167, 169 (Pa. 1986) (parties failing to appear at a Referee’s hearing “must set forth the reasons for failing to appear . . . and the [Board] must make a

2015Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 83 A.3d 484 , 486 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). 3 A party who fails to appear at a scheduled hearing must demonstrate “good cause for that failure before the Board will delay the final disposition of the case by remanding for additional hearings.” McNeill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 511 A.2d 167, 169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).

2023As such, it is well established “that a claimant’s own negligence is insufficient ‘proper cause,’ as a matter of law, to justify h[er] failure to appear at a referee’s hearing and warrant a new hearing.” Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947, 948 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).

2016However, we have also held that “a party’s own negligence is not sufficient ‘good cause’ as a matter of law for failing to appear at a Referee’s hearing.” Eat’n Park Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 970 A.2d 492, 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947, 950-51 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (stating that “[c]laimant’s own negligence [in misreading the timely received hearing notice] was the sole cause of his not appearing at . . . the referee’s hearing” and that “[his] own negligence is insufficient ‘proper cause,’ as 1

2025Bd. of Rev., 589 A.2d 305, 307 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (noting that a “party who failed to attend the scheduled hearing has failed to take the necessary steps to protect its own interests” (citation modified)).

2018In these circumstances, "the party who failed to attend the scheduled hearing has failed to take the necessary steps to protect its own interests." Tri-State Scientific , 589 A.2d at 307 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016However, we have also held that “a party’s own negligence is not sufficient ‘good cause’ as a matter of law for failing to appear at a Referee’s hearing.” Eat’n Park Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 970 A.2d 492, 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947, 950-51 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (stating that “[c]laimant’s own negligence [in misreading the timely received hearing notice] was the sole cause of his not appearing at . . . the referee’s hearing” and that “[his] own negligence is insufficient ‘proper cause,’ as 1

2016However, we have also held that “a party’s own negligence is not sufficient ‘good cause’ as a matter of law for failing to appear at a Referee’s hearing.” Eat’n Park Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 970 A.2d 492, 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947, 950-51 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (stating that “[c]laimant’s own negligence [in misreading the timely received hearing notice] was the sole cause of his not appearing at . . . the referee’s hearing” and that “[his] own negligence is insufficient ‘proper cause,’ as 7

1997See In re Greist, 431 Pa.Super. 188 , 636 A.2d 193 (1994) (notice of appeal from an involuntary commitment order was untimely made more than 30 days after the commitment order was entered, even though the trial court scheduled a hearing for the motion to reconsider; trial court’s failure expressly to grant reconsideration within 30 days rendered the commit ment order final, citing Pa. R.A.P. 903(a), 1701(b)(3), 1701 comment, 42 Pa.C.S.A); Shapiro v. Center Township, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 82 , 632 A.2d 994 (1993) (an order staying all proceedings or merely setting a date for argument on a petition is

1997See In re Greist, 431 Pa.Super. 188 , 636 A.2d 193 (1994) (notice of appeal from an involuntary commitment order was untimely made more than 30 days after the commitment order was entered, even though the trial court scheduled a hearing for the motion to reconsider; trial court’s failure expressly to grant reconsideration within 30 days rendered the commit ment order final, citing Pa. R.A.P. 903(a), 1701(b)(3), 1701 comment, 42 Pa.C.S.A); Shapiro v. Center Township, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 82 , 632 A.2d 994 (1993) (an order staying all proceedings or merely setting a date for argument on a petition is

2020In Sanders v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 524 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), the employer contacted the referee shortly before the scheduled hearing to explain that its representative was unable to attend.

1991Under such circumstances, the party who failed to attend the scheduled hearing has failed to take the necessary steps "to protect its own interests." Sanders v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 105 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 372, 376, 524 A.2d 1031, 1033 (1987); Medical College of Pennsylvania , 59 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 414, 429 A.2d at 1272 .

2025See Warmkessel v. Hefner, 17 A.3d 408, 413 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding that appellant met an exception to the mootness doctrine when, even though he had completed his sentence, he remained subject to the same order, he might face civil contempt proceedings again, and he and other similarly situated defendants could raise the same claim in the future). - 31 - J-A21038-24 The trial court noted that Batterman produced the report on October 11, 2023, and the trial court scheduled a hearing for October 13, 2023, to determine whether the purge conditions had been satisfied.

2023Cf. S.T., 192 A.3d at 1161-65 (due process requires that incarcerated parent be able to fully participate in hearing concerning that parent’s request for supervised physical custody).13 In his second issue, Father argues that the trial court erred by applying the doctrine of res judicata to the present matter based upon the court’s earlier rulings against Father in custody modification petitions, which was the ____________________________________________ 13 Father also contends that Judge Veon’s July 27, 2022 order that cancelled the scheduled hearing and denied the Motion for Hearing violated

2021Commonwealth v. Simms, 198 A.3d 500, 503-04 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). 5 In Simms, the trial court dismissed the defendant’s summary appeal under PA.