In Baum v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 949 A.2d 345 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), the licensee was convicted of operating a vehicle without the required financial responsibility and received a notice of suspension from the Department on March 20, 2007. The deadline for the appeal was April 20, 2007. On April 2, 2007, the licensee appealed her conviction and requested a delay in the suspension. The licensee received the Department letter denying the request to delay the suspension on April 23, 2007, three days after the appeal period had expired. The licensee petitioned the trial court for leave to proceed nunc pro tunc which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Court affirmed, stating that the licensee was not unaware of when the 30 day appeal period would expire and was not prevented from filing her appeal within that period. She merely failed to perfect her appeal within that time period. There also was no allegation that the Department acted in any manner to prevent her from filing her appeal within the 30 day appeal period. The licensee was convicted of failing to produce proof of financial responsibility. On March 20, 2007, the licensee received a letter from the Department that her operating privilege would be suspended for three months. On April 2, 2007, licensee's counsel appealed her conviction and mailed a letter to the Department, requesting a delay in the license suspension. Licensee's counsel received the Department's letter denying the request to delay suspension on April 23, 2007, three days after the 30-day period to appeal the license suspension had expired. Licensee petitioned the trial court for leave to proceed nunc pro tunc, alleging that: (1) the Department routinely grants delays of suspensions; (2) licensee would have filed a timely appeal of the notice of suspension if the Department had responded to her delay request in a timely manner; (3) 'there was no way to anticipate that the Department would take a legal position contrary to the plain meaning of Section 1786. Baum, 949 A.2d at 347. The trial court denied licensee's petition, and this Court affirmed. In so holding, this Court reasoned that licensee "was neither unaware of when the thirty-day appeal period would expire, nor was she prevented in any manner from filing her appeal within that period. Rather, Licensee failed to perfect an appeal within that time period" of 30 days. Id. at 349. Additionally, there was "absolutely no allegation that the Department acted in any manner to preclude licensee from filing her appeal within the thirty-day appeal period." Id. at 349-50. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision denying licensee leave to proceed nunc pro tunc because licensee could have, and ultimately should have, filed a timely suspension appeal.