Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOHN A. WISE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/17/82)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: September 17, 1982.

JOHN A. WISE, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT

Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of John A. Wise, No. B-196738.

COUNSEL

John L. Walder, for petitioner.

Richard C. Lengler, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 116]

In the instant case, the Claimant,*fn1 seeks a remand because the referee failed to comply with Part VI of 34 Pa. Code ยง 101.21(a) which requires the referee to give an unrepresented claimant certain instructions regarding his rights. In Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 427, 430 A.2d 354 (1981), we held that such an omission on the referee's part required a remand. Our review of the record indicates that the referee did not give the Claimant the required instructions in this case.

The Commonwealth, however, argues that the referee's omission was not prejudicial to the Claimant and, therefore, under our holding in Robinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 275, 431 A.2d 378 (1981), no remand is required. In Robinson we*fn2 said that where the failure of the referee to give appropriate instructions was neither prejudicial to the claimant nor materially

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 117]

    affected his rights, the error was harmless. In the case now before us, the substantive issue was whether Claimant's alleged absenteeism constituted willful misconduct. The employer presented no evidence and was not present at the hearing. A document from the records of the Office of Employment Security apparently received from the employer but not otherwise identified or authenticated was admitted over Claimant's objection. This evidence was clearly hearsay and its admission was prejudicial to the Claimant.

Being satisfied that under Katz and Robinson Claimant is entitled to a remand, it will be so ordered.

Order

The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the within matter is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the attached opinion.

Disposition

Reversed and remanded.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.