Shields v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Shields v. Commonwealth

395 A.2d 702, 39 Pa. Commw. 501, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1161

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 2, 1979

DocketAppeals, Nos. 1373, 1414 and 1415 C.D. 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 395 A.2d 702 (Shields v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shields v. Commonwealth, 395 A.2d 702, 39 Pa. Commw. 501, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1161 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

The appellant, Lawrence D. Shields, was denied unemployment compensation benefits initially by the Bureau of Employment Security and by the referee and on appeal by the Unemployment Compensation Appeal Board because (1) the termination of his employment was caused by his own wilful misconduct, (2) he was not able and available for work, and (3) he failed to comply with the absence reporting requirements. The findings of fact which are supported by substantial evidence indicate that the appellant was discharged as the result of his numerous absences due to alcoholism, that he was later hospitalized for treatment of his alcoholism and that he subsequently failed to report to the employment office as required. These findings as a matter of law support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Mooney v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 404, 395 A.2d 675 (1978); Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Sanchez, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 353, 346 A.2d 390 (1975); [503]*503Janick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commonwealth. Ct. 441, 383 A.2d 973 (1978). The Board’s denial of benefits must therefore be affirmed.

Order

And Now, this 2nd day of January, 1979, the orders of the Unemployment Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matters are hereby affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

The appellant, Lawrence D. Shields, was denied unemployment compensation benefits initially by the Bureau of Employment Security and by the referee and on appeal by the Unemployment Compensation Appeal Board because (1) the termination of his employment was caused by his own wilful misconduct, (2) he was not able and available for work, and (3) he failed to comply with the absence reporting requirements. The findings of fact which are supported by substantial evidence indicate that the appellant was discharged as the result of his numerous absences due to alcoholism, that he was later hospitalized for treatment of his alcoholism and that he subsequently failed to report to the employment office as required. These findings as a matter of law support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Mooney v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 404, 395 A.2d 675 (1978); Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Sanchez, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 353, 346 A.2d 390 (1975); [503]*503Janick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commonwealth. Ct. 441, 383 A.2d 973 (1978). The Board’s denial of benefits must therefore be affirmed.

Order

And Now, this 2nd day of January, 1979, the orders of the Unemployment Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matters are hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 A.2d 702, 39 Pa. Commw. 501, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shields-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack