Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Wolf](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10807778/c-puleo-v-ucbr/about:blank#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 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

C. Puleo v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 835 C.D. 2021
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Wolf

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by Wolf

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Cheyann Puleo, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 835 C.D. 2021
:
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, :
Respondent : Submitted: February 3, 2026

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE WOLF FILED: March 12, 2026

Cheyann Puleo (Claimant) petitions for review of a May 19, 2021 order
of the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review (Board) affirming a
decision of a Referee that dismissed Claimant’s appeal from a notice of
determination as untimely under Section 501(e) of the Unemployment
Compensation Law (Law).1 Upon review, we find no error in the Board’s conclusion
that Claimant’s appeal to the Referee was untimely. Thus, we affirm.
On July 5, 2020, Claimant filed an internet claims application seeking
UC benefits. Certified Record (C.R.) 009-017. On October 28, 2020, the UC

1
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 821(e).
At the time of Claimant’s appeal to the Referee, Section 501(e) of the Law required claimants to
file an appeal within 15 days. Act 30 of 2021 amended Section 501(e) of the Law and extended
the deadline to timely file an appeal to 21 days. The amendment was not yet effective at the time
of Claimant’s appeal.
Service Center issued a Notice of Determination denying Claimant’s benefits under
Section 402(e) of the Law (relating to willful misconduct), 43 P.S. § 802(e). Id. at
032-035. The Notice of Determination stated in the top right corner and under the
heading “appeal instructions” that the final day to appeal was November 12, 2020.
Id. at 033-034. The Notice of Determination also provided instructions on how to
appeal by mail, fax, online, or in person at a CareerLink. Id. at 033-034. On
November 12, 2020, at 4:10 p.m., the District Office Manager of Claimant’s State
Representative sent the following email to two individuals at the legislative affairs
office:

Josh or Kate:

Can you please submit the ATTACHED Petition for
Appeal.
Our constituent above said that the deadline is today
11/12/2020.
She did not provide any other documents except for the
aforementioned Petition for Appeal.

C.R. 041. On November 13, 2020, at 8:21 a.m., the legislative affairs office
forwarded the Petition for Appeal to the UC Service Center, which accepted it that
same day. Id. at 039-041 (stamping documents as received on November 13, 2020).
A Referee held a hearing on January 25, 2021, to determine, inter alia, whether
Claimant filed a timely appeal of the Notice of Determination. Id. at 049, 084-096.
Following the hearing, the Referee issued a decision dismissing Claimant’s appeal
as untimely filed under Section 501(e) of the Law. Id. at 097-102. The Referee
reasoned that

[t]he [C]laimant entrusted her appeal to an employee of
her state representative, not to any unemployment

2
authority, Careelink, or the United States Post Office in
accordance with the instructions on the determination
being appealed. That employee did not submit the appeal
to the UC Authorities by the deadline. The [C]laimant’s
appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Id. at 099. Claimant appealed to the Board, asserting that her appeal should be
liberally treated as filed on November 12, 2020, because she brought the appeal to
her state representative’s office and that appeal was forwarded to the legislative
affairs office, which is contained in the Labor & Industry Building in Harrisburg,
the same location as the Board. The Board rejected Claimant’s argument,
explaining:

The unemployment compensation regulations provide
how an appeal may be filed. An electronically transmitted
appeal is considered filed on “the receipt date recorded by
the Department appeal office or the Board’s electronic
transmission system.” In this context, the “Department
appeal office” means “A Department office responsible
for unemployment compensation where an appeal may be
filed and accepted, according to the Department-provided
instructions accompanying a determination.” The
determination advised an electronic appeal may be filed at
www.uc.pa.gov/appeals, which would generate an email
to the address the legislative affairs office used to submit
the [C]laimant’s appeal.

Nowhere in the regulations is an appeal considered filed
when transmitted to a state representative or somewhere in
the Labor & Industry Building outside of the
unemployment compensation system. Therefore, the
Board is constrained to find that the [C]laimant failed to
file an appeal until November 13, 2020.
C.R. 120. The Board also concluded that Claimant’s late appeal was not justified
nunc pro tunc:

3
The [C]laimant did not appeal by November 12, 2020,
because she did not follow the directions on how to file an
appeal and relied on her representative’s office to file an
appeal on her behalf. When one relies on a third party to
act as her agent, the negligence of that agent is imputed to
her. Further, although the staffer on appeal asserts the
[C]laimant never received the determination, that is
inconsistent with the [C]laimant’s testimony that she had
the determination within the appeal period and could have
filed a timely appeal if proper procedures were followed.
Therefore, the [C]laimant has not justified her late appeal.
Id. Accordingly, the Board affirmed the Referee’s decision to dismiss Claimant’s
appeal as untimely filed. Claimant petitioned this Court for review.
Claimant’s brief contains a single sentence of argument. She asks the
Court “to allow her case to be heard and not be dismissed because the appeal was
submitted in a timely matter [sic] based on the letter and the spirit of the law and
should not be considered as a court filing that was one day late.” Claimant’s Br. at
2. The Board responds that Claimant’s brief is so deficient that her appeal should
be dismissed. Alternatively, the Board argues that it correctly concluded that
Claimant’s action of contacting somebody outside of the Department – her state
representative – was insufficient to file a timely appeal, and she has not satisfied the
heavy burden of proof for nunc pro tunc relief. Thus, the Board alternatively asks
us to affirm its order.
We address first whether the deficiencies present in Claimant’s brief
preclude us from conducting meaningful appellate review. As pointed out by the
Board, Claimant’s brief contains only a statement of jurisdiction, argument, and
conclusion section. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). The scope and standard of review,
statement of questions involved, statement of the case, and summary of the argument
sections are listed as headings but simply say “waived” beneath. See id.; Claimant’s
Br. at 2. We agree with the Board that these deficiencies are substantial. However,

4
we decline to dismiss or quash Claimant’s appeal as the defects do not preclude us
from disposing of Claimant’s singular argument on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101
(“[I]f the defects [] in the brief [] of the appellant are substantial, the appeal or other
matter may be quashed or dismissed.”); 770 Ameribeer, Inc. v. Liquor Control Bd.,
318 A.3d 998, 1004 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024) (A brief’s technical deficiencies may
not warrant outright quashal of the underlying appeal if they “do[ ] not preclude this
Court from discerning [an appellant’s] arguments ... or from performing meaningful
review of the issues on appeal[.]”) (internal citation omitted).
Claimant’s sole argument is that this Court should find her appeal
timely based on the spirit of the Law. However, this Court has consistently
explained that the failure to file a timely appeal under Section 501(e) of the Law is
a jurisdictional defect. Russo v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 13 A.3d 1000,
1003 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). This “statutory appeal period is mandatory and may not
be extended as a matter of grace or indulgence.” Id. In order to justify an exception
to the appeal deadline, a Claimant bears the heavy burden of proving that her delay
resulted from extraordinary circumstances involving fraud, a breakdown in the
administrative process, or non-negligent circumstances relating to Claimant herself.
Carney v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 181 A.3d 1286, 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2018). While we are cognizant that our Supreme Court has identified the Law as a
“remedial” statute warranting liberal construction, such cannot serve to overcome a
jurisdictional defect. Quigley v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 225 A.3d 914,
920 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020). As this is the only rationale Claimant provides for her
untimely appeal, she fails to meet the heavy burden of establishing fraud, a
breakdown in the administrative process, or non-negligent circumstances, thus
foreclosing the possibility for nunc pro tunc relief. Carney, 181 A.3d at 1288.

5
Finding no error in the Board’s decision that Claimant’s appeal to the
Referee was untimely under Section 501(e) of the Law, we affirm the Board’s order.

---

MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

6
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Cheyann Puleo, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 835 C.D. 2021
:
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, :
Respondent :
ORDER

AND NOW, this 12th day of March 2026, the May 19, 2021 order of
the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.

---

MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge