Paolucci v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
127 A.3d 1289, 633 Pa. 697, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 2834, 2015 WL 8096446
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues are:
(1) Does the Commonwealth Court’s opinion conflict with this Court’s precedent in Bortz v. WCAB, [546 Pa. 77, 683 A.2d 259 (1996),] which recognized the distinct con[698]*698duct standards in workers’ compensation and unemployment compensation adjudications?
(2) Does the Commonwealth Court’s opinion conflict with this Court’s precedent in Harkness v. U[nemployment Comp. Bd. of Review 591 Pa. 543, 920 A.2d 162 (2007),] which emphasized the prompt and informal nature of unemployment compensation proceedings and, therefore, presents a question of such substantial public importance as to require this Court’s definitive resolution?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Paolucci v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 127 A.3d 1289, 633 Pa. 697, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 2834, 2015 WL 8096446 (Pa. 2015).
127 A.3d 1289 (Paolucci v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Harkness v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
920 A.2d 162 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)
Bortz v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
683 A.2d 259 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1996)