Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MARINOFF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (03/22/61)

March 22, 1961

MARINOFF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 361, Oct. T., 1960, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-58480, in re claim of Joseph Marinoff. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Stanley W. Bluestine, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 333]

OPINION BY RHODES, P.J.

Claimant in this unemployment compensation case was last employed by M. Buten and Sons, Philadelphia. He had a valid separation therefrom on May 14, 1959.

Claimant filed an application for benefits, effective May 15, 1959, and he subsequently signed for, and received, unemployment compensation for thirty weeks without having had intervening employment.

[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 334]

On December 7, 1959, the Legislature added section 4(w)(2), Act of December 17, 1959, P.L. 1893, 43 PS ยง 753(w)(2), to the Unemployment Compensation Law. Section 4(w)(2) of the Law now provides:

"(2) An application for benefits filed within ninety (90) days after the termination of a preceding benefity year by an individual who has had no work, whether or not such work is in 'employment' as defined in this act, during the last fifty-one weeks of such preceding benefit year shall not be considered a Valid Application for Benefits within the meaning of this subsection, unless such individual has, subsequent to the exhaustion of benefits during such preceding benefit year, maintained an active registration for work in a public employment office by personal visits thereto at intervals of not more than sixty (60) days, or if such individual has refused to accept suitable work, whether or not such work is in 'employment' as defined in this act, subsequent to such exhaustion."

When claimant filed his last claim, on December 23, 1959, he was given Form UC-483 A for which he signed acknowledging that he understood the contents of that form which explained the provisions of section 4(w)(2).

Claimant did not report to the local office within the sixty-day period following his appearance on December 23, 1959, because, he claimed, he did not remember that he had been instructed to do so. Claimant did appear at the local office on February 24, 1960, which ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.