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.

MARIANNE WILKINS v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (11/08/82)

decided: November 8, 1982.

MARIANNE WILKINS, 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 Marianne Wilkins, No. B-189436.

COUNSEL

David L. Hill, for petitioner.

Francine Ostrovsky, Associate Counsel, with her, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

President Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 592]

The claimant, Marianne Wilkins, appeals here from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's denial of benefits*fn1 pursuant to Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn2 The Board held that she had failed to accept suitable work when it was offered to her.

The claimant was last employed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a clerk-typist. She was a seasonal employee, customarily recalled to work by telephone or mail when work was available. During the episode here in question, the IRS twice attempted to notify the claimant by telephone that work was available and, when these attempts failed, messages were left instructing her to call. Additionally, a letter of recall was sent to her on April 1, 1980, advising her to report to work on April 7, 1980. She, however, failed to contact the IRS, even after being informed by the Office of Employment Security, on August 22, 1980, that her benefits were being held pending the

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 593]

    receipt of the information requested concerning the recall letter.

The claimant contends that she did not receive either the recall letter or the phone messages. There was testimony, however, that the letter was correctly addressed to her home address, and that the phone messages were given to someone who identified herself as the claimant's sister and to another person who identified herself as the claimant's friend. The claimant does not argue that a message was not given to her sister, but that her sister never relayed the message to her, because, as a result of a disagreement, they do not speak to each other. As to the other message, she testified that she did not know which friend could have taken it.

Where, as here, the party with the burden of proof has prevailed below, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether or not the Board erred as a matter of law or necessary findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Maxwell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 604, 423 A.2d 430 (1980). Furthermore, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the Board has found, giving that party the benefit of every inference which can be logically and reasonably drawn from it. James v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 489, 296 A.2d 288 (1972).

Here, the referee and the Board did not believe the claimant's testimony that she had not received the recall letter. There is no doubt that question of credibility, evidentiary weight and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, fall within the province of the Board. Condominium Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation ...


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.