Hood Unemployment Compensation Case

163 A.2d 896, 193 Pa. Super. 88, 1960 Pa. Super. LEXIS 609
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 16, 1960
DocketAppeal, No. 152
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 163 A.2d 896 (Hood 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
Hood Unemployment Compensation Case, 163 A.2d 896, 193 Pa. Super. 88, 1960 Pa. Super. LEXIS 609 (Pa. Ct. App. 1960).

Opinion

Opinion by

Gunther, J.,

Tbe Board of Review dismissed claimant’s appeal as not being timely filed under section 502 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. 822. The bureau and the referee, after hearing on the merits, ruled that claimant voluntarily terminated her employment without cause and, therefore, was disqualified under section 402 (b) of the Law. It is unnecessary to discuss the merits inasmuch as we fully agree with the board that the claim should be dismissed under section 502.

The last day for filing an appeal of the referee’s decision was February 1, 1960. Appellant did not proceed until February 3, 1960, when she mailed a letter to the bureau indicating her desire to appeal.

In the Bee Unemployment Compensation Case, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 231, 119 A. 2d 558, the Court held that in the absence of fraud the board had no authority to extend the appeal period. One who has failed to appeal within ten days is not entitled to a hearing on the merits. Abrams Unemployment Compensation Case, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 580, 119 A. 2d 656.

There are no extenuating circumstances that would authorize the board to extend the time for filing of this appeal.

The claimant contends as follows: “Claimant initiated appeal of decision on February 3, 1960, which was 10. legal days allowed discounting two (2) Sundays which are not to be considered for legal negotiation.”

[90]*90Counsel for the board argues that if there are two intervening Sundays, as in this case, then both Sundays must be included in the computation of the ten day appeal. We agree with the board’s contention.

Decision is affirmed.

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

Related

Governor's Approval of Legislation
68 Pa. D. & C.2d 43 (Pennsylvania Department of Justice, 1974)
Ferretti Unemployment Compensation Case
171 A.2d 594 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 A.2d 896, 193 Pa. Super. 88, 1960 Pa. Super. LEXIS 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1960.