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.

NINA MYERS v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/01/86)

decided: October 1, 1986.

NINA MYERS, 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 Nina Myers, No. B-238181.

COUNSEL

Kenneth R. Jewell, Jewell & Kennel, for petitioner.

Samuel Lewis, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

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

Author: Craig

[ 101 Pa. Commw. Page 150]

Claimant Nina Myers has appealed a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review holding that all the unemployment compensation she received for three particular weeks, within a six-week period, was subject to recoupment as a fault overpayment because, during the period involved, she was not unemployed and failed to file valid applications. Sections 4(u), 401, 401(c), 404(d), 804(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess. P.L. (1937) 1897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยงยง 753(u), 801, 801(c) 804(d), 874(a).

After the claimant's separation from her previous job under circumstances which were not disqualifying, she applied for benefits effective August 19, 1984, established a weekly benefit rate of $206, subject to a 5% reduction, and a partial benefit credit of $83.00. Undisputed board Findings Nos. 4-9 state the further history of the case as follows:

4. On August 16, 1984, the claimant began helping Znarf and Snibber on a parttime voluntary basis. Claimant was performing some administrative services for this employer.

5. The employer had told the claimant that if she wished to help them out they would be glad to accept her assistance but she would not be paid for such work because they had no money coming in. Claimant was instructed that if they started to sell systems in the future and if she assisted, there would be a commission on sales.

6. On October 10, 1984, the claimant did submit an invoice to the employer showing the dates she did some work, the kind of work she performed, the amount of hours she worked, and the mileage from August 16, 1984, through October 1, 1984.

[ 101 Pa. Commw. Page 1517]

. On the invoice, the claimant indicated an hourly rate of $12.00 and mileage expense of 25 cents per mile.

8. Claimant did not report her work to the Office of Employment Security until October 24, 1984, when she told the claims interviewer she had started ...


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.