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.

CALVIN H. WALKER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/31/78)

decided: January 31, 1978.

CALVIN H. WALKER, JR., PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Calvin Walker, No. B-133489.

COUNSEL

Jay L. Fingeret, with him Messer & Shilobod, for petitioner.

Susan Shinkman, Assistant Attorney General, with her Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Blatt, sitting as a panel of two. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 439]

Calvin Walker (claimant) appeals here from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision denying him unemployment compensation pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation

[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 440]

Law*fn1 (Law), which denies benefits when an employee has been guilty of wilful misconduct.

Section 510 of the Law, 43 P.S. ยง 830, provides that this Court's scope of review in an unemployment compensation appeal is confined to questions of law and, absent fraud, to a determination of whether or not the findings of fact are supported by the evidence.

The sole issue raised by the claimant here is whether or not the notice he received as to his right to appeal was constitutionally sufficient. The notice in question was a form which explained the procedure for taking an appeal, and the claimant argues that it denied him due process of law because it did not additionally and specifically inform him of his right to request oral argument and to present a brief or further testimony when his appeal would be heard by the Board.

The constitutional guarantees of due process are applicable to administrative as well as judicial proceedings. Pioneer Finance Co. v. Pennsylvania Securities Commission, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 447, 450, 346 A.2d 890, 892 (1975). The essential elements of due process are notice and the opportunity to be heard and to defend in an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case, before a tribunal having jurisdiction of the matter. First National Bank of Pike County v. Pennsylvania Department of Banking, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 603, 606, 300 A.2d 823, 825 (1973). The claimant here does not claim any infringement of his due process rights in his hearing before the referee but only that the notice given to him of his right to appeal the referee's decision did not inform him sufficiently as to the procedure which could be followed.

This Court is not aware of, nor has the claimant cited, any authority for his ...


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.