and, upon review, issued a Final Order upholding the Bureau’s dismissal of C.E.’s appeal as untimely. C.E. now petitions this Court for review. Failure to file a timely appeal of an administrative agency’s decision creates a jurisdictional defect, and an extension of time to file an appeal cannot be granted “ ‘as a matter of grace or mere indulgence ...' " J.A. v. Department of Public Welfare, 873 A.2d 782, 785 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (quoting H.D. v. Department of Public Welfare, 751 A.2d 1216, 1219 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000)). However, an appellant can request that an untimely appeal be heard nunc pro tunc if the filing was late due to fraud, a breakdown in the administrative process, or non-negligent actions by the appellant or counsel. See Criss v. Wise, 566 Pa. 437, 781 A.2d 1156, 1160 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of
holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant holding that failure to consider potential mail delay was not a nonnegligent circumstance holding that the jury is not to consider the potential punishment which could result from a conviction holding that appellants seven day hospitalization was a nonnegligent circumstance holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable