Merida v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

In Merida v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 117 Pa. Commw. 181, 543 A.2d 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988), the referee held a hearing at which only the claimant participated. At the close of the hearing, the referee learned the employer's representatives were in the waiting area but had not been admitted to the hearing room. Consequently, the referee scheduled a second hearing to which the claimant objected. The referee subsequently rendered a decision in favor of the employer. Importantly, the referee did not address the propriety of the second hearing. The claimant appealed to the Board merely stating he did not "agree with [the referee's] decision." Id. at 594. The Board affirmed on the merits. In dictum, however, the Board noted the referee properly scheduled the second hearing because the employer suffered prejudice when it was not ushered into the hearing room. On his subsequent appeal to the Court, the claimant argued the referee erred by conducting the second hearing. In response, the Board asserted the claimant waived the issue. The Court ultimately agreed with the Board that the claimant's non-specific disagreement with the referee's decision failed to preserve any issues on appeal. Because the referee did not address the propriety of the second hearing in his decision, and the claimant made numerous objections throughout the second hearing, the Court held the Board could not be charged with scouring the record to determine every possible basis for the claimant's appeal.