Koruszko v. UCBR - PUA Benefit Calculation Challenge

Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Cohn Jubelirer](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10839236/r-koruszko-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

April 8, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

R. Koruszko v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1504 C.D. 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Cohn Jubelirer

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (753)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Renee Cohn Jubelirer](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8207/renee-cohn-jubelirer/)

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ronald Koruszko, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1504 C.D. 2024
: Submitted: February 3, 2026
Unemployment Compensation Board :
of Review, :
Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
HONORABLE STELLA M. TSAI, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: April 8, 2026

Ronald Koruszko (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of an Order of the
Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review (Board), which affirmed a
decision by a Referee, determining Claimant was eligible for Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits for a weekly benefit amount (WBA) of
$324.1 Claimant challenges the WBA calculation and argues he provided the income

1
The Order also indicated that Claimant had a $10,800 non-fraud PUA overpayment.
Overpayments are subject to separate determinations. While it appears Claimant may have filed
an appeal of the overpayment to the Referee (Appeal No. 2021015482-AT) and Board (Board
Appeal No. 2022006194-BR), (Certified Record at 70-71, 158), the Petition for Review filed in
this matter only identifies it is an appeal of the Board’s Order at docket No. 2023004582-BR,
which was appealing the Referee’s decision at Appeal No. 2021017787-AT, relating to
Determination No. 7830976, the Monetary Redetermination.
documentation the Department of Labor and Industry (Department) requested and
he acted in good faith reliance upon its instructions. Upon review, we are
constrained to affirm.
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Claimant, a self-employed real estate
agent, filed an application seeking PUA benefits. (Board’s Findings of Fact (FOF)
¶ 1.) Based upon a self-certified income of $55,000, a UC Service Center issued a
Monetary Determination finding Claimant’s WBA to be $540. (Certified Record
(C.R.) at 11, 13, 83; FOF ¶¶ 2-3.) The Department subsequently sought additional
income information and adjusted the WBA to $195 after Claimant did not provide
the documentation. (C.R. at 24-25; FOF ¶¶ 4-5.)
Thereafter, Claimant submitted additional income information and appealed
the redetermination. (C.R. at 28-46; FOF ¶¶ 7, 9.) Following a telephone hearing
at which Claimant and his wife testified, the Referee issued a decision finding
Claimant’s WBA to be $324, which was determined based upon Claimant’s net
income of $32,892 during the base year, as reflected on Claimant’s 2019 Schedule C.
(C.R. at 88-97; FOF ¶¶ 8, 10.) Claimant appealed to the Board, which affirmed in
its September 11, 2024 Order. (C.R. at 195-202.)
Claimant now seeks review before this Court,2 arguing he provided the
information requested by the Department and relied upon its determination, which it
changed more than a year later, resulting in an overpayment. (Claimant’s Brief (Br.)
at 5-7.) The Board responds the PUA benefits are based on net income, not gross
income. (Board’s Br. at 5-7, 9.) The Board explains that while individuals were

2
“Our review is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact were
supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether
constitutional rights were violated.” Johns v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 87 A.3d 1006,
1009 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).

2
permitted to self-certify initially, the Department was required to obtain additional
information to redetermine the WBA. (Id. at 7-8.) Based upon Claimant’s Schedule
C for 2019, Claimant’s net income was $32,982. Therefore, his WBA was correctly
determined to be $324.
Section 2102(b) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
of 2020 (Cares Act) provides PUA may be provided to any “covered individual”
while he or she is unemployed or unable to work due to COVID-19, during the weeks
in which the individual is not entitled to any other unemployment compensation. 15
U.S.C. § 9021 (b). A “covered individual” includes an individual who is not eligible
for regular UC benefits and who provides self-certification he or she is self-
employed. Id. § 9021(a)(3). It is undisputed that Claimant was self-employed and,
therefore, a covered individual entitled to PUA benefits. The sole issue is the WBA
of those benefits.
Section 2102(d)(2) of the Cares Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9021 (d)(2), provides that the
amount of PUA for self-employed individuals “shall be calculated in accordance
with section 625.6 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations,” 20 C.F.R. § 625.6 (the
regulation). The regulation, in turn, explains that

[i]n all States, . . . the amount of [Disaster Unemployment Assistance
(DUA)3] payable to an unemployed worker or unemployed self-
employed individual for a week of total unemployment shall be the
weekly amount of compensation the individual would have been paid
as regular compensation, as computed under the provisions of the
applicable State law for a week of total unemployment. In no event
shall such amount be in excess of the maximum amount of regular
compensation authorized under the applicable State law for that week.

3
PUA is a form of DUA.

3
20 C.F.R. § 625.6 (a). Here, Section 404(e)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation
Law (UC Law), 43 P.S. § 804(e)(1),4 sets forth a relevant benefits chart. For self-
employed claimants, “[t]he self-employment income to be treated as wages for
purposes of computing the weekly amount . . . shall be the net income reported on
the tax return of the individual as income from all self-employment that was
dependent upon the performance of services by the individual.” 20 C.F.R.
§ 625.6 (a)(2) (emphasis added). The regulation further dictates how the Department
initially shall determine the WBA:

The State agency shall immediately determine, upon the filing of an
initial application for DUA, a weekly amount . . . based on the
individual’s statement of employment or self-employment
preceding the individual's unemployment that was a direct result of the
major disaster, and wages earned or paid for such employment or self-
employment. An immediate determination of a weekly amount shall
also be made where, in conjunction with the filing of an initial
application for DUA, the individual submits documentation
substantiating employment or self-employment and wages earned or
paid for such employment or self-employment, or, in the absence of
documentation, where any State agency records of employment or self-
employment and wages earned or paid for such employment or self-
employment, justify the determination of a weekly amount.
Id. § 625.6(e) (emphasis added). However, if the WBA is initially calculated solely
“on the individual’s statement of earnings, the individual shall furnish
documentation to substantiate the employment or self-employment or wages earned
from or paid for such employment or self-employment . . . within 21 calendar days
of the filing of the initial application for DUA.” Id. § 625.6(e)(1). “If an individual
submits documentation to substantiate employment or self-employment in
accordance with paragraph (e)(1), but not documentation of wages earned or paid

4
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S.
§ 804(e)(1).

4
during the base period,” the regulation provides “the State agency shall immediately
redetermine the weekly amount of DUA payable to the individual in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section.” Id. § 625.6(e)(3). Even in such instance, a claimant
“may submit necessary documentation to substantiate wages earned or paid during
the base period . . . at any time prior to the end of the disaster assistance period.” Id.
§ 625.6(e)(4). The state agency must then redetermine WBA based on the
information provided. Id.
This procedure is outlined in the initial Monetary Determination from May
11, 2020, which advised Claimant that redeterminations were possible:

If you filed your PUA claim based only on your certification of credit
weeks and/or wage documentation, you must submit sufficient
documentation of employment/self-employment within 21 days of your
initial application. If sufficient documentation is not received within
21 calendar days, your PUA WBA will be redetermined. If the
redetermined amount is less than the original PUA WBA and you
received payments of PUA for any weeks of unemployment prior to the
date of the redetermination, a determination will be issued establishing
an overpayment.

If the PUA WBA was redetermined because the required wage
documentation was not submitted within 21 calendar days, you may
have your WBA redetermined upon submittal of the documentation
prior to the end of the pandemic assistance period. Any higher weekly
amount determined will be applied to all weeks for which your [sic]
filed and for which you were eligible for the payment of DUA.
(C.R. at 85 (underscoring in original).)
Based upon the tax documentation Claimant submitted, the Board determined
Claimant’s net wages were $32,892 during the base year, as reflected on Claimant’s
2019 Schedule C. (C.R. at 195-202; FOF ¶¶ 8, 10.) As there was no breakdown of
wages by quarter, the Board divided the total net wages by four and allocated $8,223
per quarter. (C.R. at 197.) Using this quarterly wage, the Board determined

5
Claimant’s rate of compensation was $324. See id.; 43 P.S. § 804(e)(1). We discern
no error by the Board.
While Claimant asserts his gross wages were $55,000, the regulation does not
permit consideration of gross wages. See 20 C.F.R. § 625.6 (a)(1). To the extent
Claimant argues he reasonably relied upon the initial Monetary Determination for
the higher WBA, this is not a basis to reverse the Board’s Order when the Monetary
Redetermination was properly calculated. Furthermore, both the regulation and the
Monetary Determination warn that a redetermination is possible. We are
sympathetic to Claimant’s situation, but we must nonetheless affirm the Board’s
Order.

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

6
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ronald Koruszko, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1504 C.D. 2024
:
Unemployment Compensation Board :
of Review, :
Respondent :

ORDER

NOW, April 8, 2026, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board
of Review, entered in the above-captioned matter, is AFFIRMED.

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge