Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Annabelle Eskra, No. B-220865.
Richard B. Henry, Bugaj and Henry, for petitioner.
Charles Donahue, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 437]
Annabelle Eskra (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 438]
(Board) affirming a referee's decision which concluded: 1) that Claimant was not entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits under Section 404(d)(iii) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)*fn1 and; 2) that Claimant was liable for a nonfault overpayment under Section 804(b) of the Law.*fn2 We affirm.
The facts as found by the referee and adopted by the Board are not in dispute. Claimant was employed in a knitting mill until October 7, 1982, when she was laid off because of a lack of work. Claimant filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits on October 10, 1982. The application was granted by the Office of Employment Security (OES) and Claimant received sixty-four dollars ($64.00) per week for five weeks.
Prior to the lay-off, in August of 1982, Claimant had filed an application with the Social Security Administration for Social Security retirement benefits (pension).*fn3 On November 18, 1982 Claimant received a notification from the Social Security Administration stating that she would receive pension benefits in the amount of three hundred thirty-two dollars ($332.00) per month effective as of October 2 1982.*fn4
Claimant informed the OES of this change in her income. As a result, the OES determined that, because
[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 439]
Claimant's weekly pension benefits, which were equivalent to seventy-six dollars ($76.00) per week, exceeded the amount of her unemployment compensation benefits, she was not entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. The OES further determined that Claimant did not deliberately or willfully conceal facts in order to obtain unemployment compensation, therefore, she would be subject to the nonfault recoupment of ...