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.

CATHERINE F. LIPSHUTZ v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/27/75)

decided: March 27, 1975.

CATHERINE F. LIPSHUTZ, 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 Catherine F. Lipshutz, No. B-113140-C.

COUNSEL

Raymond J. Porreca, for appellant.

Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 182]

This is an appeal by Catherine F. Lipshutz (claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) disallowing her application for unemployment compensation benefits. This court, in Lipshutz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 257, 303 A.2d 231 (1973), vacated an earlier decision of the Board which had ruled against claimant and we remitted the record back to the Board for further proceedings. In Lipshutz we held that the Board erred because its findings heavily relied on the hearsay testimony of a representative of the employer rather than on the vital direct testimony of Mr. Stanford Frank, the employer, who did not personally testify.

In response to our order, the Board remanded the case to a referee who heard the vital additional testimony of Mr. Frank and who, after reviewing all of the testimony, issued a new opinion denying benefits to claimant.

In reviewing this case, we have kept in mind the well settled principle of law that our scope of review in unemployment compensation cases is confined to questions of law and, absent fraud, to a determination as to whether the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. Questions concerning credibility and the weight to be given the evidence are for the Board. Shira v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 457, 310 A.2d 708 (1973).

Claimant contests the Board's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Act, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. [1937] 2897, Art. IV, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(e), which provides that:

"An employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --

"(e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work . . . ."

[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 183]

In Chambers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 317, 319, 318 A.2d 422, 423 (1974), we stated, ...


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.