Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Leo F. Maiorana, No. B-191967.
R. Michael Owens, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Associate Counsel, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 615]
Leo F. Maiorana (claimant) appeals from that part of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision holding the claimant liable for a recoupment fault overpayment based upon Section 804(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn1 for not disclosing pertinent information on his claim for unemployment compensation benefits.
The claimant was last employed by the Suburban Industrial Maintenance Company. In August of 1980 the claimant was given an unpaid two week leave of absence by his employer so that he could go to Arizona on personal business. The claimant remained in Arizona for approximately one month without ever giving his employer notification of this extended stay. Upon returning to work in September of 1980, the claimant was informed that he had been replaced. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits citing his reason for being unemployed as "No work
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 616]
available when return (sic) from leave of absence." The claimant subsequently received benefits for the weeks ending October 18 and October 25, 1980 totaling $196.
On November 14, 1980, the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) issued a determination denying benefits, finding that the claimant had voluntarily quit his job under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b). On that same day, the Bureau issued a determination that the claimant had been paid benefits to which he was not entitled and it established a nonfault recoupable overpayment under Section 804(b), 43 P.S. § 874(b).
The claimant appealed the Bureau's determinations to a referee, which referee affirmed the denial of benefits under Section 402(b), and modified the Section 804(b) nonfault recoupable overpayment to a Section 804(a),*fn2 fault overpayment, thereby requiring the claimant to repay the $196 he received to the Unemployment Compensation Fund. It was the referee's conclusion that the claimant had failed to disclose pertinent information on his claim for benefits.*fn3 It is interesting to note however, that in response to question 5 on the claimant's Summary of Interview, inquiring as to the reason for the claimant's discharge, he stated, "My leave was longer than expected and my position had to be filled. There was no longer an open position for me to work." On appeal the Board affirmed the referee's decision and adopted his findings of fact.
The claimant now appeals to this Court contesting the Section 804(a) determination of a fault overpayment on the basis that neither the referee nor the Board ...