Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Violet G. Shimko, No. B-154634.
Violet G. Shimko, for herself, petitioner.
John Kupchinsky, Assistant Attorney General, with him James K. Bradley, Assistant Attorney General, and Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Rogers and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 579]
Violet G. Shimko (petitioner) has appealed from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which upheld the decision of the referee denying benefits. We affirm.
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 580]
This case arose because there were three complementary yet distinct unemployment compensation programs in effect when the petitioner applied for benefits. The regular Pennsylvania unemployment compensation program provided for up to 39 full weeks of benefits for qualified applicants. Section 404 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 804. Once regular benefits were no longer available, an eligible applicant could receive up to 13 weeks of benefits under the extended benefits program. Section 401-A of the Unemployment Compensation Law, added by Section 2 of the Act of February 9, 1971, P.L. 1, 43 P.S. § 811. Finally, there was a special federal supplemental benefit program which would provide up to 13 more weeks of benefits after extended benefits were exhausted. Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1974, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3304 note.
The petitioner applied for benefits on July 24, 1977, but it was determined that she was no longer eligible for regular benefits under Section 404 of the Unemployment Compensation Law. She was then considered for extended benefits under Section 401-A et seq., but there was some question concerning her physical ability to work. Benefits were denied pending receipt by the Office of Employment Security (OES) of a valid doctor's certificate concerning the petitioner's physical condition. The petitioner did not appeal this denial of benefits.
Some 5 weeks later the certificate was obtained and the petitioner became eligible for extended benefits for the week ending September 3, 1977. The petitioner received extended benefits for 9 weeks, exhausting her eligibility under the extended benefits program on October 29, 1977. She then applied for federal supplemental benefits but was denied because of Section 102(f)
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 581]
(f) of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1974, as amended by the Act of April 12, 1977, which provided that "[n]o emergency compensation shall be payable to any individual . . . (A) for any week ending after October 31, 1977," unless the applicant was eligible for federal supplemental benefits for at least one week ending before October 31, 1977.
The referee determined that the petitioner was ineligible for federal supplemental benefits prior to October 24, 1977, and therefore did not have a week which ended prior to October 31, 1977 during which she was eligible for federal supplemental benefits. The petitioner asserts that she would have had such a week if benefits for the period from July 24 through August 26 had not been improperly denied. She testified that she was initially informed by an employee of the OES that the denial of benefits for that period would not cause her to be ineligible for federal supplemental benefits, and she ...