Appeals from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in cases of In Re: Claim of Floyd D. Stanek, Appeal Nos. B-71-1-F-11 and B-71-1-F-59.
Floyd J. Stanek, appellant, for himself.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
Floyd J. Stanek has filed separate appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. One appeal is from the Board of Review's determination that the appellant was ineligible to receive benefits for the week ending January 1, 1971 by reason of his failure to report and file claim on January 8, 1971. The other appeal is from the Board of Review's determination that the appellant was further ineligible for benefits during a two week period between
February 13, 1971 and March 2, 1971 while the appellant was in the State of Iowa caring for his infirm mother and arranging for her placement in a nursing home.
The appellant had been declared eligible for compensation benefits by the Bureau of Employment Services in October of 1970, and regularly reported to the local Bureau office to receive his checks, except for the three weeks in question.
The Board of Review's denial of benefits for the week ending January 1, 1971 was based upon Section 401(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 801(b), which states as a qualification for compensation that the claimant be ". . . registered for work at, and thereafter . . . [continue] . . . to report at, an employment office in accordance with such regulations as the secretary may prescribe. . . ." The pertinent Regulation requires claimants to report each week and file claim for the previous week of unemployment. The appellant was scheduled to report January 8, 1971 to file claim for the week ending January 1, 1971. He failed to report, the Board of Review found, "because, due to the press of personal business he forgot." This finding has ample support in the record. In a letter to the Bureau of Employment Security dated January 15, 1971 which the appellant has insisted should be a part of the formal record before the Board of Review, he writes:
"During the course of the excitement and my sincere desire to immediately follow-up any and all leads, I simply, temporarily, forgot that Friday, Jan. 8 was my regular date to report for my unemployment check. However, I did appear at my regular reporting window on Monday Jan. 11; but was instructed to report to Station A on my next reporting date, Friday, Jan. 15, as I am now doing.
"Please believe, that at the time, my oversight was unintentional and unknowingly. In short, I simply forgot, but only because I was ...