decided: September 24, 1982.
CAROLYN L. ROHRBACH, PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT
Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Carolyn L. Rohrbach, No. B-197188.
Terry L. Parish, Murphy & Parish, P.C., for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 173]
Carolyn L. Rohrbach (Claimant) has appealed from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which found her ineligible for compensation benefits under Section 401(c) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)*fn1 and ordered
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 174]
recoupment of a fault overpayment under Section 804(a) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 874(a), for compensation received for weeks during which Claimant failed to report earnings. We affirm.
Claimant first argues that the referee failed to comply with the provisions of 34 Pa. Code § 101.21(a) and, in particular, that portion of the rule which requires that the tribunal give a claimant "every assistance compatible with the impartial discharge of its official duties." It is clear that the referee here advised Claimant of her rights as required by our decision in Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 427, 430 A.2d 354 (1981).*fn2 Claimant nevertheless argues that the referee's failure to advise her as to the hearsay nature of certain evidence introduced into the record without objection constitutes a breach of the referee's duty under 34 Pa. Code § 101.21(a). We disagree. A referee is not required to advise a claimant on specific evidentiary questions or points of law. Snow v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 396, 433 A.2d 922 (1981).
Turning to the merits of the appeal, Claimant concedes that she failed to report wages earned while working part-time as a waitress. Claimant argues that she was under the impression that earnings which did not exceed her partial benefit credit need not be reported. Claimant also testified, however, that she
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 175]
had received an information booklet from the unemployment compensation authorities and that she had read the booklet. The Board concluded that having read the booklet, Claimant should have known that she was required to report all wages earned during each claim filing period. The Board, accordingly, found that Claimant was not misinformed by the Office of Employment Security as to her duty to report earnings.
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 176]
We think the Board's findings are adequate to support the legal conclusion that Claimant violated the requirements of Section 401(c)*fn3 of the Law and that the unemployment compensation benefits paid to Claimant constitute a fault overpayment under Section 804(a) of the Law. We have previously held that a claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits for those weeks in which she fails to report earnings. Summers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 146, 430 A.2d 1046 (1981). Moreover, a fault overpayment is established where the overpayment is due to an act of the recipient to which blame, impropriety, shortcoming, censure or culpability attaches. Patrick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 238, 398 A.2d 1095 (1979). Having received and read the information booklet, we think that Claimant's failure to report her earnings constitutes "fault" within the meaning of Section 804(a). See Lynn v. Unemployment Compensation Page 176} Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 75, 396 A.2d 500 (1979).
It is ordered that the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-197188, dated July 14, 1981, is hereby affirmed.