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.

MICHAEL J. HEALEY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/06/78)

decided: July 6, 1978.

MICHAEL J. HEALEY, JR., PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT; CATALYST RECOVERY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., INTERVENOR



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Michael J. Healey, Jr., No. B-139382.

COUNSEL

Albert G. Feczko, Jr., with him Feczko and Seymour, for appellant.

Reese Couch, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 416]

Michael J. Healey, Jr., a 20-percent shareholder in Catalyst Regeneration Service, Inc. (CRS), was discharged from his employment as Vice President of CRS on May 3, 1976. The Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) denied his claim for unemployment compensation pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment

[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 417]

Compensation Law (Act)*fn1 on the ground that he was discharged for willful misconduct.*fn2 After a hearing on appeal, the decision of the Bureau was "affirmed as modified" by the referee, who concluded that claimant was also ineligible under Section 402(h) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 802(h), because he was a self-employed businessman rather than an employee.*fn3 The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) disallowed further appeal and this appeal followed.

Claimant raises two issues on appeal. First, it is argued that he was denied a full and fair hearing in that he was not permitted to fully cross-examine the employer's representative and he was not permitted to take testimony from his witness. After a review of the record, we cannot agree.

The hearing was conducted in accordance with the rule in 34 Pa. Code § 101.21(b) which states:

(b) The tribunal shall determine the order in which the evidence shall be presented in all hearings. Within the discretion of the tribunal, the parties shall be permitted to present all evidence and testimony which they believe is necessary to establish their rights.

The record reveals that both the claimant and the employer's representative ...


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.