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.

BARBARA LYNN SHAPOWAL v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/24/89)

decided: January 24, 1989.

BARBARA LYNN SHAPOWAL, 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 Barbara L. Shapowal, No. B-267730.

COUNSEL

Barbara L. Shapowal, petitioner, for herself.

Maribeth Wilt-Seibert, Assistant Counsel, with her, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Doyle and McGinley, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge McGinley.

Author: Mcginley

[ 123 Pa. Commw. Page 93]

This is an appeal by Barbara L. Shapowal (Claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision and denied Claimant benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1 We affirm.

The pertinent findings made by the Board indicate that Claimant was employed as a research technician by the University of Pennsylvania (Employer) from October 7, 1987, until her last day of employment on March 10, 1988. The Board found that the Employer scheduled a meeting on March 10, 1988 to discuss Claimant's job performance.*fn2 Claimant refused to attend the meeting or discuss the job performance issues.*fn3 Claimant was relieved of her duties on March 10, 1988 because of her

[ 123 Pa. Commw. Page 94]

    insubordinate behavior and failure to attend a subsequent meeting on March 15, 1988 to discuss her job performance.*fn4 Claimant was terminated from her employment on March 17, 1988.

On appeal to our Court, Claimant appears to assert that the Board's decision is against the law. Our review of Claimant's brief, however, discloses that Claimant has failed to preserve a single issue for our consideration inasmuch as she has not complied with Pa. R.A.P. 2116 (pertaining to contents of briefs) which pertinently provides:

Statement of Questions Involved

(a) General Rule. The statement of the questions involved must state the question or questions in the briefest and most general terms. . . . This rule is to be considered in the highest degree mandatory, admitting of no exception; ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested thereby.

Since Claimant has failed to properly state any questions for our consideration, we shall consider none. Lucarelli v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Emerson Electric), 119 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 72, 546 A.2d 151 (1988); Wicker v. Civil ...


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.