Wise v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Wise v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

450 A.2d 314, 69 Pa. Commw. 115, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1567

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 17, 1982

DocketAppeal, No. 1766 C.D. 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 450 A.2d 314 (Wise v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review) 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

Wise v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 450 A.2d 314, 69 Pa. Commw. 115, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1567 (Pa. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge MacPhail,

In the instant case, the Claimant,¹ seeks a remand because the referee failed to comply with Part VI of 34 Pa. Code §101.21(a) which requires the referee to give an unrepresented claimant certain instructions regarding his rights. In Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 427, 430 A.2d 354 (1981), we held that such an omission on the referee’s part required a remand. Our review of the record indicates that the referee did not give the Claimant the required instructions in this case.

The Commonwealth, however, argues that the referee’s omission was not prejudicial to the Claimant and, therefore, under our holding in Robinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 275, 431 A.2d 378 (1981), no remand is required. In Robinson we² said that where the failure of the referee to give appropriate instructions was neither prejudicial to the claimant nor materially [117]*117affected his rights, the error was harmless. In the case now before us, the substantive issue was whether Claimant’s alleged absenteeism constituted willful misconduct. The employer presented no evidence and was not present at the hearing. A document from the records of the Office of Employment Security apparently received from the employer but not otherwise identified or authenticated was admitted over Claimant’s objection. This evidence was clearly hearsay and its admission was prejudicial to the Claimant.

Being satisfied that under Katz and Robinson Claimant is entitled to a remand, it will be so ordered.

Order

The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the within matter is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the attached opinion.

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

Opinion by

Judge MacPhail,

In the instant case, the Claimant,¹ seeks a remand because the referee failed to comply with Part VI of 34 Pa. Code §101.21(a) which requires the referee to give an unrepresented claimant certain instructions regarding his rights. In Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 427, 430 A.2d 354 (1981), we held that such an omission on the referee’s part required a remand. Our review of the record indicates that the referee did not give the Claimant the required instructions in this case.

The Commonwealth, however, argues that the referee’s omission was not prejudicial to the Claimant and, therefore, under our holding in Robinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 275, 431 A.2d 378 (1981), no remand is required. In Robinson we² said that where the failure of the referee to give appropriate instructions was neither prejudicial to the claimant nor materially [117]*117affected his rights, the error was harmless. In the case now before us, the substantive issue was whether Claimant’s alleged absenteeism constituted willful misconduct. The employer presented no evidence and was not present at the hearing. A document from the records of the Office of Employment Security apparently received from the employer but not otherwise identified or authenticated was admitted over Claimant’s objection. This evidence was clearly hearsay and its admission was prejudicial to the Claimant.

Being satisfied that under Katz and Robinson Claimant is entitled to a remand, it will be so ordered.

Order

The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the within matter is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the attached opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 A.2d 314, 69 Pa. Commw. 115, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wise-v-commonwealth-unemployment-compensation-board-of-review-pacommwct-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack