Section 65.33. [Reserved]  

Conflict

A conflicting appointment with an employment counselor is not an acceptable reason for not reporting a claim for a week, especially since the applicant could have kept the appointment with the counselor as well as her scheduled appointment at the offices of the Bureau some other time of that day. Seibert v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 403 A.2d 1369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).

Delay

Claimant was not entitled to 2 weeks of predating pursuant to subsection (a)(5) of this section following the death of claimant’s father, because the regulation gives claimants only a 2-week reprieve to take care of family matters, and did not excuse claimant’s 5-month failure to file for benefits. Ascheim v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 694 A.2d 4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997); appeal denied 700 A.2d 443 (Pa. 1997); appeal denied 718 A.2d 786 (Pa. 1998).

Misrepresentation by Employment Office

Claimant failed to meet his burden of showing that he was misled or prevented from filing claims for the weeks at issue, where he admitted that he received and read the unemployment compensation handbook which sets forth the reporting requirements, he assumed on his own that he was no longer eligible for benefits due to the receipt of a pension, and there was no evidence or testimony that anyone connected to the Job Center prevented the claimant from filing claims. Menalis v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 712 A.2d 804 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).

Because an unemployment compensation claimant’s backdating of an application for unemployment benefits could not be justified on the basis that the employer made misrepresentations about eligibility for benefits, claimant’s application was considered untimely. Mitchelree v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 635 A.2d 701 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).