Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HUMBERT G. DIIENNO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/05/81)

decided: June 5, 1981.

HUMBERT G. DIIENNO, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. ALLENTOWN COLLEGE OF ST. FRANCIS DESALES, INTERVENOR



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Humbert G. DiIenno, No. B-179429.

COUNSEL

Anthony C. Santore, for petitioner.

Stephen B. Lipson, Assistant Attorney General, with him John Kupchinsky, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.

Robertson B. Taylor, Kolb, Holland & Taylor, for intervenor.

Judges Mencer, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 497]

The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) dismissed the appeal of Humbert G. DiIenno (DiIenno), who was denied benefits by a referee, because it was untimely filed under the provisions

[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 498]

    of Section 502 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1 We affirm.

There is no dispute that the 15-day limitation of the Law for the perfection of appeals had run at the time this appeal was filed.*fn2 DiIenno, however, contends that he must be permitted to appeal nunc pro tunc since the delay in perfecting his appeal was due to the referee's failure to adequately inform him of his right to appeal.*fn3

The statutory time limit for filing an appeal from a referee's determination is mandatory in the absence of fraud or manifestly wrongful or negligent conduct by the administrative agency. Das v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 483, 399 A.2d 816 (1979). Moreover, a timely appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The burden is on DiIenno to establish agency conduct which would permit an appeal nunc pro tunc.

There is no allegation of fraud or wrong conduct on the part of the agency. To the contrary, DiIenno did not consult the unemployment compensation authorities for advice or information concerning his right to appeal, and he acknowledged that, had he read the entire notice of decision ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.