referee hearing in Pennsylvania

2025McNeill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 511 A.2d 167, 169 (Pa. 1986).

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

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

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

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

2015Claimant asserts that Section 214 of the Law,4 as confirmed by our Supreme Court’s decision in Harkness v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 920 A.2d 162 (Pa. 2007), permits non-attorney representatives to represent individuals during a referee hearing, and Mr. Bailey and Mr. Ostrowski were acting as representatives, not as attorneys, for his hearings.

2015In Harkness, the Supreme Court reasoned that a non-attorney or lay representative can represent individuals at a referee hearing because (1) an unemployment compensation proceeding is largely routine and primarily focused on creating a factual basis, or record, by which the referee can render a decision and (2) the nature of the proceeding is remedial and the purpose is to provide economic security to unemployed individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own, thus the proceedings are “by design, brief and informal.” Id. at 166, 168 .

2018Martin, slip op. at 4; see Tri State Scientific v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 589 A.2d 305, 307 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (“A party who has been duly notified of a hearing and who fails to attend that hearing after his or her continuance request has been denied by a referee may not challenge denial of the continuance when the issue was not raised in the notice of appeal to the Board.”); see also 34 Pa. Code §101.24 (providing the 3 Pursuant to Commonwealth Court Internal Operating Procedure Section 414(a), 210 Pa. Code §69.414 (a), an unreported Commonwealth Court panel decision issue

2015Bd. of Review, 138 Pa.Cmwlth. 676 , 589 A.2d 305, 307 (1991). *1279 Even if not waived, this Court would not review this issue since Claimant’s arguments focus upon Claimant's base year calculations rather than his immediately preceding benefit year totals at issue here. ■

1992See Bostic v. Dreher, 206 Pa.Superior Ct. 257, 213 A.2d 118 (1965).

1986See Bostic v. Dreher, 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 257 , 213 A.2d 118 (1965).

2016Eat’N Park Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 970 A.2d 492, 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (employer’s instructions to referee with respect to attempting to contact employer’s witness by telephone were not accurate due to employer’s own negligence); Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 747 A.2d 436, 439 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (employer’s personnel director failed to explain why she did not discover hearing notice over several days she was in office or why notice was not reviewed by person reviewing mail in her absence); Savage v. Unemployment Compensation

2009Second, this Court has repeatedly 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. *495 Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 747 A.2d 436 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000); Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 89 Pa.Cmwlth. 61 , 491 A.2d 947 (1985).

1981Section 414 of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §775, states that “[w]henever a . . . petition is presented to the department, the department shall . . . assign it to a referee for hearing.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, “the Board [is] statutorily obligated to assign [a petition] to a referee for hearing.” School District of Philadelphia v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 17 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 525, 528 , 333 A.2d 223, 225 (1975).

1981Section 414 of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §775, states that “[w]henever a . . . petition is presented to the department, the department shall . . . assign it to a referee for hearing.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, “the Board [is] statutorily obligated to assign [a petition] to a referee for hearing.” School District of Philadelphia v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 17 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 525, 528 , 333 A.2d 223, 225 (1975).

2016During the Referee hearing, Claimant argued that her PDC statements supported her testimony, and asked the 8 The ‘Walker rule’ established by Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, . . . 367 A.2d 366 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1976), provides the following guidelines for the use of hearsay evidence in administrative proceedings: ‘(1) Hearsay evidence, [p]roperly objected to, is not competent evidence to support a finding of the Board . . . (2) Hearsay evidence, [a]dmitted without objection, will be given its natural probative effect and may support a finding of the [UCBR], [i]f it is corrobo

2016During the Referee hearing, Claimant argued that her PDC statements supported her testimony, and asked the 8 The ‘Walker rule’ established by Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, . . . 367 A.2d 366 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1976), provides the following guidelines for the use of hearsay evidence in administrative proceedings: ‘(1) Hearsay evidence, [p]roperly objected to, is not competent evidence to support a finding of the Board . . . (2) Hearsay evidence, [a]dmitted without objection, will be given its natural probative effect and may support a finding of the [UCBR], [i]f it is corrobo

2025Bd. of Rev., 591 A.2d 1164, 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (same); Cunningham v. Unemployment Comp. 3 In her Petition for Review, Claimant states that she was “unable to atten[d] to the court on December 2017 because [she] was very sick” and had surgery “five days later.” (Pet. for Rev. at 1- 2.) Although it is unclear, it appears that Claimant may be referring to her failure to attend the Referee’s hearing on December 1, 2022, which resulted in the Referee’s dismissal of her appeals as untimely.

2025On these alleged facts, Claimant filed a single-count Petition for Review in the nature of mandamus,7 asking this Court to award damages in the amount of approximately $50,000 plus attorney’s fees and costs, or to direct the Department to conduct a referee hearing and to issue the amounts offset from Claimant’s PUA 7 “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel the performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty where a petitioner establishes (1) a clear legal right to relief, (2) a corresponding duty in the respondent, and (3) a lack of any other adequate and appropriate remedy at l

2020A rehearing is “generally granted to allow a party the opportunity to present evidence not offered at the original hearing because it was not then available.” Fisher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 696 A.2d 895, 897 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

2019Further, “[i]f a party fails to file an answer and/or fails to appear in person or by counsel at the hearing without adequate excuse, the referee hearing the petition shall decide the matter on the basis of the petition and evidence presented.” Section 416 of the Act, 77 P.S. §821; see also Yellow Freight System, 423 A.2d at 1127 (same).

2019Bd. of Review, 739 A.2d 616, 618 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)). 3 At the Referee hearing, Employer’s human resources manager Jennifer McCann (McCann) presented Employer’s “Workplace Guidelines” which were accepted into evidence.

2019Bd. of Review, 739 A.2d 616, 618 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)). 3 At the Referee hearing, Employer’s human resources manager Jennifer McCann (McCann) presented Employer’s “Workplace Guidelines” which were accepted into evidence.

2018In exercising his discretion, the referee is not free to completely disregard the rules of evidence; although he has “wide latitude” regarding the admissibility of evidence, he cannot “improperly refuse to accept relevant competent and material evidence.” Healey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 387 A.2d 1025, 1027 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).

2018John Kenneth, Ltd. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 444 A.2d 824, 826 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982). 4 mechanism for a party who did not attend a scheduled hearing to submit a request to reopen the hearing and/or obtain a remand for a hearing).