Friel Unemployment Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Friel Unemployment Compensation Case

75 A.2d 7, 167 Pa. Super. 362, 1950 Pa. Super. LEXIS 509

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 20, 1950

DocketAppeal, 33

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 75 A.2d 7 (Friel Unemployment Compensation Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Friel Unemployment Compensation Case, 75 A.2d 7, 167 Pa. Super. 362, 1950 Pa. Super. LEXIS 509 (Pa. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Reno, J.,

Friel appealed from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which held that he had good cause for leaving his employment but denied benefits because he was not available for work. He was 69 years old, and left the employ of Charles E. Campbell on April 15,1949, because he was not physically able to work in the wet areas of his employer’s coal mine, and his request for transfer to a dry section was denied. He *363 registered for work on April 19, 1949, and in Ms claim for compensation he stated that he: “Retired due to age.” During the week ending May 2, 1949, for which compensation was sought, he was in Washington, D. C., arranging for his old age assistance under the Social Security Act of Congress. The finding of the board is sustained by the evidence.

Two months after he left Ms employment he applied for the pension to which he was entitled as a member of the United Mine Workers of America, and payments began three months later. The question discussed but not decided in Pendleton Unemployment Compensation Case, 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 256, 75 A. 2d 3, may be involved in this case.

In his argument and brief, counsel for the board stated that its decision applied only to appellant’s claim for compensation for the first week following the waiting period of one week. Counsel explained: “Such a decision is, of course, without prejudice as to a claimant’s eligibility during subsequent claim weeks. The test of availability for work is applied weekly to each claim for benefits, based upon the circumstances existing during that week. In the instant case no decision has yet been made on a number of claims which claimant filed subsequent to May 2, 1949. The Bureau, however, has tentatively withheld payment of all claims filed, pending the outcome of this appeal.” Accordingly, our order will permit appellant to pursue his claims for the subsequent weeks.

Decision affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s right to proceed upon his claims for compensation subsequent to May 2, 1949.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Reno, J.,

Friel appealed from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which held that he had good cause for leaving his employment but denied benefits because he was not available for work. He was 69 years old, and left the employ of Charles E. Campbell on April 15,1949, because he was not physically able to work in the wet areas of his employer’s coal mine, and his request for transfer to a dry section was denied. He *363 registered for work on April 19, 1949, and in Ms claim for compensation he stated that he: “Retired due to age.” During the week ending May 2, 1949, for which compensation was sought, he was in Washington, D. C., arranging for his old age assistance under the Social Security Act of Congress. The finding of the board is sustained by the evidence.

Two months after he left Ms employment he applied for the pension to which he was entitled as a member of the United Mine Workers of America, and payments began three months later. The question discussed but not decided in Pendleton Unemployment Compensation Case, 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 256, 75 A. 2d 3, may be involved in this case.

In his argument and brief, counsel for the board stated that its decision applied only to appellant’s claim for compensation for the first week following the waiting period of one week. Counsel explained: “Such a decision is, of course, without prejudice as to a claimant’s eligibility during subsequent claim weeks. The test of availability for work is applied weekly to each claim for benefits, based upon the circumstances existing during that week. In the instant case no decision has yet been made on a number of claims which claimant filed subsequent to May 2, 1949. The Bureau, however, has tentatively withheld payment of all claims filed, pending the outcome of this appeal.” Accordingly, our order will permit appellant to pursue his claims for the subsequent weeks.

Decision affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s right to proceed upon his claims for compensation subsequent to May 2, 1949.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.2d 7, 167 Pa. Super. 362, 1950 Pa. Super. LEXIS 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friel-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack