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.

JOHN B. LENT v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/09/84)

decided: July 9, 1984.

JOHN B. LENT, 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 John B. Lent, No. B-208825.

COUNSEL

Arthur S. Zanan, for petitioner.

Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Craig, Barry and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.

Author: Barry

[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 536]

John B. Lent, claimant herein, received unemployment compensation benefits and exhausted the maximum benefits then due him. Claimant subsequently filed for extended unemployment compensation benefits under the federally funded Extended Benefits Program. The Office of Employment Security determined that the claimant was ineligible under Section 403-A of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 813(a)-1, (a)-2. A referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirmed this decision.

The claimant at the time of separation from employment received a copy of Booklet No. UCP-9 (Unemployment Compensation Shareable Regular/Extended Benefits Program) which explained his rights and responsibilities under the Extended Benefit Program. He was informed in the booklet that he had to make four employer contacts per week and at least two of these contacts had to be in person. During the week of March 20, 1982, claimant submitted a report of his job-seeking activities as required under the

[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 537]

Extended Benefits Program. The report indicated that claimant had made four contacts by mail during the week. Claimant had also tentatively arranged interviews with two attorneys which were cancelled by the attorneys.

At the referee's hearing, claimant submitted two notarized statements from each attorney which indicated that they had appointments scheduled with claimant which each cancelled. The referee determined that these statements were "self-serving" on the part of the claimant and that claimant did not make two personal contacts with employers during the week at issue. The referee, therefore, concluded that claimant was ineligible under Section 403-A(b) of the Law because he failed to make a demonstrated, systematic and sustained effort to obtain work during the week claimed. The Board adopted the findings of the referee and affirmed his decision.

Section 403-A(a) of the Law provides the eligibility requirements for extended benefits. It states:

[a]n individual shall be eligible to receive . . . extended benefits with respect to any week of unemployment in his eligibility period only if the Secretary of Labor and ...


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.