decided: December 29, 1975.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL J. GERVASI, APPELLANT. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. MICHAEL F. KOZEMPEL, APPELLANT. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. SALVATORE MARTINES, APPELLANT
Appeals from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in cases of In Re: Claim of Michael J. Gervasi, No. B-124516; In Re: Claim of Michael F. Kozempel, No. B-124747; and In Re: Claim of Salvatore Martines, No. B-124748.
Richard Kirschner, with him Neal Goldstein, and Markowitz & Kirschner, for appellants.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Kramer.
[ 22 Pa. Commw. Page 536]
These are appeals by Michael J. Gervasi, Michael F. Kozempel, and Salvatore Martines from orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated February 18 and March 5, 1975, in which the Board sustained a reduction of the appellants' benefits in accordance with Section 404(d)(iii) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second. Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 804(d)(iii), and this Court's decision in G.C. Murphy Company v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 537, 319 A.2d 438 (1974).
The sole issue presented is whether this Court erred on the question of statutory interpretation involved in G. C. Murphy. The parties agree on all of the significant
[ 22 Pa. Commw. Page 537]
facts, and they further agree that, unless we overrule G. C. Murphy, that case controls the instant appeal and the Board must be affirmed. The appellants urge us to reconsider G. C. Murphy.
We have carefully examined G. C. Murphy in light of the arguments advanced by the appellants, and we find no contention that was not considered thoroughly when we reached our decision in that case.
We see no reason to overrule G. C. Murphy, and, consequently, we
And Now, this 29th day of December, 1975, it is ordered that the orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated February 18 and March 5, 1975, in the above-captioned matters, are affirmed.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.