Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Karen L. Polakovic, No. B-251813.
Richard G. Fishman, for petitioner.
Jonathan Zorach, Assistant Counsel, with him, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 109 Pa. Commw. Page 648]
Karen L. Polakovic, claimant, appeals an order of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dismissing her appeal from a referee's decision denying her unemployment benefits. The board found that claimant's appeal was not timely filed, and that, under Pennsylvania's Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 822, it did not have jurisdiction to accept an appeal filed after the expiration of the statutory appeal period.
The sole issue for review is whether claimant's late appeal from the referee's decision should be permitted nunc pro tunc because notice of the referee's determination did not include a pink card explaining claimant's appellate rights.
Both the Office of Employment Security and the referee denied benefits. The claimant received the referee's decision, dated March 12, 1986. Under section 502 of the Law, 43 P.S. § 822, parties have fifteen days from the date of the referee's decision to file an appeal with the board. The last day for claimant to file a timely appeal was March 27, 1986; claimant filed her appeal April 4, 1986.
Claimant argues that failure to include the pink card, which outlines appellate procedures before the board, constituted negligent misinformation by the administrative agency. Claimant acknowledges that the copy of the referee's decision which she did receive included the following:
NOTICE : You have the right to file a further appeal within fifteen days after the mailing date of
[ 109 Pa. Commw. Page 649]
this decision. For more information, please read the enclosed card.
Claimant states that she did not read this notice. Claimant concludes by arguing that the above notice was also misleading, because no pink card was included in the envelope and ...