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.

MICHAEL MCGOLDRICK v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/28/87)

decided: May 28, 1987.

MICHAEL MCGOLDRICK, 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 Michael P. McGoldrick, No. B-242937.

COUNSEL

Donald M. Moser, Peruto, Ryan & Vitullo, for petitioner.

James K. Bradley, Assistant Counsel, with him, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri. Opinion by Judge Palladino.

Author: Palladino

[ 106 Pa. Commw. Page 357]

This unemployment compensation case involves an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) by Michael P. McGoldrick (petitioner).

Petitioner and Francis J. Santore, his partner, were employed by the City of Philadelphia as police officers. Both petitioner and his partner were dismissed for neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer arising out of acts they committed together.

Petitioner submitted an application for unemployment compensation benefits to the Office of Employment Security (OES). OES denied petitioner these benefits because it concluded that he was dismissed for willful misconduct in violation of Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1

Petitioner appealed the OES decision to the Board, which referred it to a referee. The referee affirmed the OES denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Petitioner then appealed the referee's decision to the

[ 106 Pa. Commw. Page 358]

Board. After reviewing both the notes of testimony of the referee's hearing and the original tape of that proceeding, the Board discovered that there was a three-minute blank spot on the tape. The Board remanded the case to the referee with orders to take additional testimony reconstructing the testimony taken during the missing three minutes.

After receiving a letter from petitioner's counsel indicating that substantial portions of the testimony of two witnesses were missing from the transcript (not just three minutes), the Board, on its own motion, vacated the referee's decision and ordered the referee to conduct a de novo hearing. The Board further ordered that the transcribed record be ...


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.