Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Peter Peda, No. B-184255.
Ira Mark Goldberg, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard Wagner, Counsel, and Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr. This decision was reached prior to the expiration of term of office of Judge Palladino. Dissenting Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 185]
Peter Peda appeals an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order which affirmed a referee's denial of benefits. We vacate and remand.
When Peda's wife was hospitalized for psychiatric care, he terminated his employment in order to be home in the evenings to care for his sixteen year old daughter. The referee denied him benefits and the Board affirmed finding that the desire to care for his daughter did not constitute a "cause of necessitous and compelling nature." Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
We will not consider this issue because Peda also contends that he was denied a fair hearing because he was not represented by counsel before the referee nor was he advised of his right to secure an attorney.*fn2 We have recently held that in an unemployment compensation case, an unrepresented claimant, has the right to be advised by the referee that he may seek legal counsel, may offer witnesses and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Vitko v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 62 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 391, 436 A.2d 1235 (1981).
Vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion.
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-184255, dated May 20, 1980, is
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 186]
vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent ...