Summary
rejecting the claimant's assertion that he was misled concerning the Law's language and noting that, "of course, [a UC claimant] is presumed to know the law"
Summary of this case from Rodgers v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
November 6, 1987.
Unemployment compensation — Scope of appellate review — Violation of constitutional rights — Error of law — Findings of fact — Substantial evidence — Reissuance of check — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Unjust enrichment — Estoppel.
1. Review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in an unemployment compensation case is to determine whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. [22]
2. Provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, prohibit the reissuance of compensation checks which the claimant failed to present for payment for two years, and the action of the Legislature in placing the two-year time limit upon the presentation of a check is reasonable and logical. [22-3]
3. To refuse to reissue an unemployment compensation check after the check was not presented for payment for two years is not violative of principles of unjust enrichment as no injustice is effected by retention of the funds by the Commonwealth when it was the claimant's personal choice not to cash the check within the required period. [23]
4. Principles of estoppel do not require that an unemployment compensation check be reissued when it was not presented for payment within two years as required by law, in the absence of evidence that the claimant was misled by the language of the applicable statute of which claimant is presumed to be aware. [23-4]
Submitted on briefs August 4, 1987, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR., Judge DOYLE, and Senior Judge KALISH, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2888 C.D. 1986, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Darrell Zeller, No. B-251141.
Application with the Office of Employment Security for reissuance of misplaced unemployment compensation checks. Reissuance of checks denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Darrell J. Zeller, petitioner, for himself.
Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
This is an appeal by Darrell J. Zeller (Claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which denied Claimant's request for the issuance of checks under Section 408 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 808 (limitation on the validity of claims). We affirm.
The referee found that in April 1983, Claimant filed for Unemployment Compensation benefits. Three checks were issued to him dated April 15, 1983, April 22, 1983 and April 28, 1983. Each check was in the amount of $213.
These three checks were among others in a series. All other checks in the series were cashed promptly.
For personal reasons, Claimant chose not to deposit or cash these checks until March 18, 1986, three years after they were issued. He then requested the three checks be reissued by the Office of Employment Security (OES). The OES denied Claimant's request. Based on these facts, the referee and the Board affirmed the decision and Claimant petitions this Court for review.
On appeal, our scope of review is limited to determining whether there was a constitutional violation or an error of law, and whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 106 Pa. Commw. 92, 525 A.2d 841 (1987).
Claimant contends that Section 408 does not bar him from obtaining reissuance of an unemployment check and that it was not the legislature's intent to allow the Board to avoid the reissuing of a check. However-much we regret the loss of these benefits to Claimant the law requires us to affirm the Board. Section 408 of the law states:
Claimant asserts that it was not the legislature's intent to deprive those who had previously been issued benefit checks, and that those who had previously been issued such checks should have the right to demand new or reissued replacement checks indefinitely.
Final payment of compensation claimed under the provisions of this act shall not be made more than two years from the last day of the week for which compensation is claimed if such final payment has not been made within such two-year period because the claimant (1) is reported by the postal authorities as 'unknown' at the last address which the employe has given to the department, (2) has failed to properly notify the department that he has not received the compensation claimed, (3) has failed to have presented to the State Treasurer for final payment a check received in payment of the compensation claimed, or (4) has failed to properly request the re-issuance of a check which has become lost or destroyed or the validity date of which has expired: Provided, That one year has elapsed from the date the check was issued or, if no check has been issued, from the last date that the claimant requested payment. The provisions of this section shall also apply to the endorser of any check issued in payment of compensation under the provisions of this act.
43 P. S. § 808 (emphasis added).
The language is clear and firmly supports the decision of the Board. The intent of the legislature in placing a two-year time limit on presentation of a check is both reasonable and logical, leaving no room for speculation.
Claimant contends, however, that the checks were not for final payment and therefore they are not within the ambit of Section 408. He bases this assertion on the fact that the checks were distributed to him in the middle period of his payment schedule, and were not "final". We do not find this literal interpretation of Section 408 persuasive. The relevant Section clearly applies to all claims for which checks were previously issued.
Claimant next asserts the principle of unjust enrichment. In order to recover on the basis of unjust enrichment, there must be both enrichment and injustice. Meehan v. Cheltenham Township, 410 Pa. 446, 189 A.2d 593 (1963). We discern no injustice where the Unemployment Compensation fund retained the money based only upon Claimant's personal choice not to cash his checks for nearly three years.
We also find Claimant's estoppel argument to be without merit. The facts presented to this Court do not indicate that Claimant was misled with respect to the language appearing in Section 408. And, of course, one is presumed to know the law.
Finally, we must reject Claimant's constitutional argument. He has offered no recognizable constitutional challenge to the controlling law.
Based upon the foregoing discussion, the order of the Board is affirmed.
ORDER
NOW, November 6, 1987, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-251141, dated July 24, 1986, is hereby affirmed.