Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Dumas](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10810036/k-oleksak-v-ucbr/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

K. Oleksak v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1446 C.D. 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Dumas

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by Dumas

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Karen Oleksak, :
Petitioner :
: No. 1446 C.D. 2024
v. :
: Submitted: February 4, 2026
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, :
Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE DUMAS FILED: March 16, 2026

Karen Oleksak (Claimant), appearing pro se, has petitioned this Court
to review an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
(Board), issued on July 5, 2024, which affirmed the Referee’s decision to dismiss
Claimant’s appeal as untimely under Section 501(e) of the Unemployment
Compensation Law (UC Law), 43 P.S. § 821(e).1 Upon review, we affirm.

1
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 821(e).
Effective July 24, 2021, Section 501(e) was amended to increase the time to file an appeal from
15 days to 21 days.
I. BACKGROUND2
In May 2023, Claimant filed for unemployment compensation (UC)
benefits. Claim Appl. Info., 5/25/23. She was later deemed ineligible, effective May
21, 2023, because she was not unemployed. See Determination, 8/21/23 (citing
Section 4(w)(1) of the UC Law, 43 P.S. § 753(w)(1)). The notice mailed to Claimant
informed her that the final date to appeal the determination was September 11, 2023.
However, Claimant did not appeal until January 16, 2024.
A hearing was held before the Referee.3 The Referee accepted
Claimant’s testimony that she had received email notice of her ineligibility but was
unable to open attachments to the notice. The Referee further accepted Claimant’s
admission that she decided to wait to address her ineligibility until she was laid off
from her seasonal employment in January 2024. Based on these facts, the Referee
dismissed the appeal.
Claimant timely appealed to the Board, which affirmed. Claimant then
timely appealed to this Court.
II. ISSUE
Claimant does not specifically address the timeliness of her appeal to
the Referee but generally claims that persistent technical issues and inadequate
assistance from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (Department)
ultimately led to the denial of her benefits.4 See generally Claimant’s Br.

2
Unless stated otherwise, we adopt the factual background for this case from the Board’s
adjudication, which is supported by substantial evidence of record. See Bd.’s Order, 7/5/24
(incorporating the Referee’s findings); Referee’s Dec., 3/12/24.
3
No representative of Employer attended the hearing, and Claimant appeared pro se.
4
For example, Claimant asserts the Board erred in failing to consider her technical difficulties
in filing a prior claim in December 2022. See Claimant’s Br. at 8, 14-15. Nevertheless, Claimant
more broadly criticizes the Department’s lack of assistance in resolving her technical issues. See

2
III. DISCUSSION5
Preliminarily, we must address the timeliness of Claimant’s appeal to
the Referee, as it implicates the jurisdiction of the Referee to consider Claimant’s
appeal. Under Section 501(e) of the UC Law, a claimant must file an appeal within
21 days of a determination. 43 P.S. § 821(e). The untimely filing of an appeal
warrants dismissal because the timely filing of an appeal, even at the administrative
level, is jurisdictional. McKnight v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 99 A.3d 946,
949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
An untimely appeal may be considered in extraordinary circumstances.
Barsky v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 261 A.3d 1112, 1119 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2021); Hessou v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 942 A.2d 194, 198 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2008). However, because the statutory time limit for appeals is mandatory, a

id. at 8-9, 17-19. In response, the Board notes that Claimant challenges neither the Board’s
findings of fact nor its conclusions of law. Bd.’s Br. at 6-8. According to the Board, Claimant has
waived the issue of timeliness, and this Court should dismiss her appeal. Id. We decline to find
waiver. In our view, Claimant’s reference to ongoing technical difficulties reflects the testimony
given at her hearing. See, e.g., N.T. Hr’g, 3/12/24, at 5-6 (explaining that she had received notice
of her ineligibility but was unable to open attachments to the notice). Therefore, we infer from
Claimant’s brief a challenge to the Board’s decision denying her nunc pro tunc relief.
5
On appeal, our review is limited to “determining whether necessary findings of fact were
supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether
constitutional rights were violated.” Pierce-Boyce v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 289 A.3d
130, 135 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable
person may accept as adequate to support a finding. Id. at 136. When there is substantial evidence
to support the Board’s findings, they are conclusive on appeal, even if there is contrary evidence
of record. Cambria Cnty. Transit Auth. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 201 A.3d 941, 947
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (CCTA). The Board is the ultimate factfinder, entitled to make its own
determinations on evidentiary weight and witness credibility, and is free to accept or reject the
testimony of any witness, in whole or in part. Id. Resolution of credibility questions and
evidentiary conflicts within the Board’s discretion “are not subject to re-evaluation on judicial
review.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Whether the record contains evidence to support findings
other than those made by the factfinder is irrelevant; “the critical inquiry is whether there is
evidence to support the findings actually made.” Sipps v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 181
A.3d 479, 484 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (internal citations omitted).

3
petitioner bears a heavy burden to establish the right to have an untimely appeal
considered. Barsky, 261 A.3d at 1120; Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198. To satisfy this
heavy burden, the claimant must establish that her untimely appeal was caused by
(1) an administrative authority engaging in fraudulent behavior or manifestly
wrongful or negligent conduct, or (2) non-negligent conduct beyond the claimant’s
control. Walthour v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 276 A.3d 837, 842-43 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2022). The question of whether there are unique and compelling facts that
would excuse an untimely appeal “is a legal conclusion to be drawn from the
evidence and is reviewable on appeal.” Barsky, 261 A.3d at 1120.
Here, the UC Service Center emailed Claimant notice of her
ineligibility on August 21, 2023. See N.T. Hr’g, 3/12/24, at 4-5. The attached
Determination indicated that the final date to appeal was September 11, 2023. See
Determination. Claimant did not submit her appeal until January 16, 2024, more
than four months after the deadline. See Claimant’s Appeal from Determination,
1/16/24. Therefore, Claimant’s appeal was patently untimely. See Section 501(e)
of the UC Law, 43 P.S. § 821(e).
Further, Claimant is not entitled to nunc pro tunc relief. At the
Referee’s hearing, Claimant conceded that she took no immediate steps to appeal.
See Hr’g Tr. at 5. When asked by the Referee for an explanation, Claimant testified,
“I just thought I would deal with this situation when I was off work again [in January
2024].” Id. Accepting this testimony, the Board concluded that Claimant’s choice
to forestall her appeal precluded nunc pro tunc relief. See Bd.’s Dec. at 2.
IV. CONCLUSION
We discern no legal error in the Board’s adjudication. Claimant did not
appeal within 21 days of the determination; therefore, her appeal was untimely. See

4
Section 501(e) of the UC Law, 43 P.S. § 821(e). Further, based on the evidence of
record, Claimant failed to establish that she is entitled to nunc pro tunc relief. See
Walthour, 276 A.3d at 842-43; Barsky, 261 A.3d at 1120. Accordingly, we affirm
the Board.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Karen Oleksak, :
Petitioner :
: No. 1446 C.D. 2024
v. :
:
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, :
Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2026, the order issued by the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review on July 5, 2024, is AFFIRMED.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge