§ 65.33. Predating.

 (a)  A claim for a week of total, partial or part-total unemployment may be deemed to be constructively filed as of the first day of a calendar week previous to the week which includes the day on which it is actually filed when, in the opinion of the Bureau, the claimant was prevented, through no fault of his own, from filing his claims during the week immediately subsequent to the week for which the claim is filed because of one or more of the following reasons:

   (1)  The inability of the local public employment office to handle currently all claims, or the postponement of claims-taking by the local office for administrative reasons shall permit not more than 6 weeks of predating.

   (2)  The inaccessibility of the office in isolated areas, or the infrequency of the periodic itinerant service established for the area in which the claimant resides shall permit not more than 2 weeks of predating.

   (3)  The closing of an office due to a holiday or by official pronouncement shall permit not more than 2 weeks of predating.

   (4)  The refusal of an office to accept a claim as a result of an error or mistake shall permit not more than 52 weeks of predating.

   (5)  Sickness or death of another member of the claimant’s immediate family or an act of God shall permit not more than 2 weeks of predating, provided the claimant was available for work during the week for which the claim is being filed.

   (6)  Illness or injury which incapacitates the claimant shall permit predating for the duration of the incapacitation plus 2 weeks but in no instance for more than 52 weeks, provided the claimant meets the eligibility requirements during the week for which the claim is being filed.

   (7)  If the claimant is employed not more than 4 weeks of predating shall be permitted. Where a claimant is filing claims for partial or part-total benefits not more than 4 weeks predating shall be permitted, commencing with the date on which the employer paid wages for the claim week in question.

   (8)  An appeal of a claimant from disqualification may permit not more than 4 weeks of predating while the appeal is pending.

 (b)  When a combination of more than one of the reasons outlined in subsection (a) has prevented the claimant from filing a claim and adherence to the most liberal limitation applicable to his case would be inequitable to the claimant, the predating provisions for applicable reasons shall be added and predating to the number of weeks which is equal to the sum of all applicable limitations shall be permitted.

 (c)  A claim for a week of total or part-total unemployment may be deemed to be constructively filed as of the first day of a calendar week previous to the week which includes the day on which it is actually filed, when a determination of the eligibility of similarly situated employes under section 402(d) of the law (43 P. S. §  802(d)) is pending, provided that the claim is filed within 6 weeks after the determination has become final.

   The provisions of this §  65.33 adopted July 1, 1969; amended September 15, 1972, effective September 16, 1972, 2 Pa.B. 1731; amended March 29, 1974, effective March 30, 1974, 4 Pa.B. 581; amended July 25, 1975, effective July 26, 1975, 5 Pa.B. 1920. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (19128) to (19129).

   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).

   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).

   This section cited in 34 Pa. Code §  65.42 (relating to date of filing).