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.

STANLEY PISAREK v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/09/87)

decided: October 9, 1987.

STANLEY PISAREK, JR., 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 Stanley Pisarek, Jr., No. B-251902.

COUNSEL

Lawrence Sager, Sager & Sager Associates, for petitioner.

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

Judges MacPhail and Barry, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick.

Author: Narick

[ 110 Pa. Commw. Page 223]

This is an appeal by Stanley Pisarek, Jr. (Claimant) from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying Claimant's request for benefits pursuant to Section 3 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 752. We affirm.

Claimant was employed for thirteen years as a physician's assistant at the Birdsboro Medical Center (Employer) at a final rate of pay of approximately $350 per week.*fn1 On March 24, 1986, Employer discovered that Claimant was not certified as a physician's assistant as required by Pennsylvania law.*fn2 As a result thereof, Claimant was advised that as of March 28, 1986, he would no longer be working for Employer.

[ 110 Pa. Commw. Page 224]

The referee awarded benefits to Claimant finding that Claimant was "[N]ever at any time during his thirteen years of employment . . . aware of any credentials, registration, certification or other requirement to work as a physician's assistant". Employer appealed the referee's determination. The Board reversed the referee and concluded that "The Claimant was aware that he was required to have proper certification"; and, therefore, Claimant was unemployed through his own fault pursuant to Section 3 of the Act.*fn3 It is from that decision and order that the present appeal arises.

The sole issue presented by Claimant on appeal is whether the Board's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 3 of the Act is erroneous.

Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether there has been a constitutional violation or an error of law and whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 106 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 92, 525 A.2d 841 (1987). Questions of credibility, evidentiary weight and inferences to be drawn from the evidence are for the Board to determine. Gallagher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 160, 378 A.2d 502 (1977). Additionally, we must examine the testimony in

[ 110 Pa. Commw. Page 225]

    the light most favorable to the party who prevails below. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 ...


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.