Appeal from the Order of the Board of Claims, in case of Albert S. Nilsen v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare and Office of Administration, Docket No. FC-78-119.
Steven P. Barsamian, for appellant.
Frank P. Clark, Assistant Counsel, with him, John D. Raup, Chief Counsel, for respondents.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Barry, and Senior Judge Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 100 Pa. Commw. Page 569]
Albert S. Nilsen appeals a Board of Claims (Board) order dismissing his claim as untimely and dismissing
[ 100 Pa. Commw. Page 570]
the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) as a party. We affirm.
On June 1, 1976, Nilsen, a DPW employee, submitted a suggestion under the Commonwealth's cost reduction program to combine four state employee fund-raising drives into one combined appeal. DPW informed Nilsen on September 23, 1976, that his suggestion would not be adopted. However, on September 16, 1977, Nilsen learned that the Commonwealth was implementing a state employee combined appeal (SECA) and he requested reconsideration of his proposal.
On December 15, 1977, upon Nilsen's request for reconsideration, DPW informed him that his proposal was deemed by the Secretary of the Office of Administration to have been under prior management consideration. Therefore, Nilsen was not eligible to receive a $10,000 award under the cost reduction program. Nilsen wrote Representative Francis J. Lynch and Auditor General Benedict asserting a grievance over the denial of the $10,000 award. Nilsen filed his claim on May 24, 1978, with the Auditor General who later transferred it to the Board.
Our scope of review of a Board order is limited to determining whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether an error of law was committed. Camp Joy, Inc. v. Department of Public Welfare, 70 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 142, 452 A.2d 891 (1982).
Nilsen contends that the Board erred in dismissing his claim because the six-month statute of limitations provision for filing a claim with the Board does not apply. He claims that (1) the statute of limitations is remedial, (2) its purpose was not served here because the Commonwealth was constantly apprised of his claim, and (3) the Commonwealth ...