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.

MAURICE D. CHAIKEN v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/02/74)

decided: April 2, 1974.

MAURICE D. CHAIKEN, APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Maurice D. Chaiken, No. B-117310-B.

COUNSEL

Samuel B. Brenner, with him Brenner and Brenner, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Kramer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Kramer.

Author: Kramer

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 535]

This is an appeal filed by Maurice D. Chaiken (Chaiken) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) dated August 10, 1973, wherein the Board affirmed the adjudication of its referee

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 536]

    denying unemployment compensation benefits to Chaiken.

Chaiken was last engaged as president and manager of National Factors, Inc., a family-owned corporation, from August 1958 to November 3, 1972. The corporation was engaged in the business of factoring which involves the purchase of accounts receivable at a discount, and the ultimate collection of such accounts usually at something more than the price paid by the factor. The record indicates that the stock of the corporation is owned by Chaiken's wife (10,000 shares) and by Chaiken's son (3,000 shares). At the time of his last date of employment, Chaiken was receiving a salary of $200 per week. Chaiken became separated from his employment because of a loss of business by the corporation. However, his wife and son still continue to operate the business on a part-time basis.

The Board concluded that Chaiken was not entitled to benefits because upon the termination of his relationship with the corporation, he became an unemployed businessman and not an unemployed worker. In his appeal to this Court, Chaiken contends that he is an unemployed worker because he owned no stock and his son controlled the business.

"Our scope of review in these cases, absent fraud, is confined to questions of law, and a determination as to whether the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. The credibility and weight to be given evidence are questions for the Board. The party victorious below is to be given the benefit of any inferences which can reasonably and logically be drawn from the evidence." Starr v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 265, 267-268, 309 A.2d 837, 839 (1973).

The State Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, ยง 402, as ...


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.