P. Duong v. UCBR

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Phi Duong, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1646 C.D. 2024 : SUBMITTED: March 3, 2026 Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE STELLA M. TSAI, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: April 9, 2026 Petitioner Phi Duong (Claimant), pro se,1 petitions for review from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming the denial of the Mixed Earner Unemployment Compensation2 (MEUC) stimulus benefit. We affirm.

The facts are as follows. Claimant applied for Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation Benefits (PEUC) in September 2020 and

Claimant does not speak English and was assisted in the preparation of his brief by his daughter.

Section 2104(b)(1)(C) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9023(b)(1)(C), provided MEUC benefits of $100 per week where an individual received at least $5,000 of self-employment income in the most recent taxable year ending prior to the individual’s application for regular unemployment compensation. subsequently applied for MEUC benefits.3 The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry issued a disqualifying determination in April 2024, explaining that Claimant had not documented that he earned $5,000 in self-employment income during the year prior to the claim. Claimant appealed. At a hearing before a Referee, at which Claimant appeared pro se and testified with the assistance of an interpreter, the following exchange occurred: R[eferee:] Now prior to [filing for MEUC benefits], was there any period of time that you were self-employed?

C[laimant:] No, I worked for a company for an owner.

R[:] Okay so you were not self-employed in 2019?

C[:] No. I[nterpreter:] I asked him this way. So you didn’t work for yourself[?] You worked for somebody else[?] He said yes.

So the answer is [. . . .]

C[:] I didn’t work for myself.

R[:] Okay. Because the reason for this determination, you were denied extra money for working for yourself. So just to be clear, you were not at any point self-employed in 2019 or an independent contractor[?]

C[:] No, I worked for somebody else.

R[:] Because in the [a]ppeal statement, it looks like someone wrote the statement for you, but it says that you were a painter . . . .

C[:] No, I was a dishwasher back then.

The documents in the Certified Record do not indicate when Claimant filed for MEUC benefits.

R[:] Okay. All right. Did you have anything else to -- because the next question will be if you can show what you earned in self-employment, but if you were not self- employed, then we don’t need to go there.

C[:] No. I don’t have anything to submit.

Notes of Testimony at 3, Certified R. “C.R.” at 68.

The Referee issued a decision affirming the decision of the Department, finding that Claimant was ineligible for MEUC benefits because he failed to show that he was self-employed during the previous year. Referee Decision, Finding of Fact 4, C.R. at 73. The Referee relied upon Claimant’s testimony that he was not self-employed in 2019 and therefore did not receive self-employment income. C.R. at 73. Claimant appealed and the Board affirmed, adopting the Referee’s decision.

The petition for review to this Court followed.

Claimant argues that he is entitled to benefits because he had been employed. However, he again states that he was not self-employed. Claimant’s Br. at 2. Claimant asks that he be able to keep the money he received from unemployment because he worked during the months before the COVID-19 shutdown.

The Board responds that because Claimant was not self-employed, he is not eligible for MEUC benefits, which require a minimum of $5,000 in self- employment earnings in the tax year prior to the application for a claimant to receive an extra $100 in benefits. The Board states that it only denied additional benefits under MEUC. The Board suggests that Claimant is confused because “Claimant was not found ineligible for any other benefits and there are no overpayments” due.

Board’s Br. at 7.

The Board appears correct that there is a misunderstanding. The Department, Referee, and Board denied MEUC benefits because Claimant was not self-employed, not because he was otherwise not employed. This is in accord with the law establishing MEUC benefits. There is nothing in the record indicating that other benefits were denied or overpaid.

In light of the foregoing, we affirm.

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge Emerita

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Phi Duong, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1646 C.D. 2024 : Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, : Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2026, the order of Respondent Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge Emerita