Thursday, April 17, 2008

UC - willful misconduct - failure to report absence

Ross v. UCBR - UNREPORTED OPINION - Commonwealth Court - April 14, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1874CD07_4-14-08.pdf

Claimant committed willful misconduct by failing to properly report her absence, as required by acknowledged employer policy. Claimant's medication caused "extreme fatigue", but the Board found and claimant admitted that she was able to call the employer at some time during the day.

Although claimant's absence was justified, her failure to report it, as required, was willful misconduct. Sedor v. UCBR, 522 A.2d 118 (Pa. Cmwlth 1987)

The fact that the employer policy was not written did not excuse claimant's failure. "It is not necessary that Employer's directive be in writing" in order to establish willful misconduct. Graham v. UCBR, 840 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

divorce - venue - residence or agreement - Rule 1920.2

Danz v. Danz - Superior Court - April 16, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s21041_08.pdf

Motion to open decree granted where record did not not establish compliance with Rule 1920.2, showing that one of the parties resides in the county or the parties have agreed, in writing, that the action could be brought in the suejct county.

"The plain language of Rule 1920.2(b) and the history surrounding its promulgation lead us to an inexorable conclusion. Rule 1920.2(b) requires a trial court to ensure the record establishes venue is proper—either by residence, written agreement, or tacit agreement through participation— before directing entrance of a divorce decree. The divorce decree in this case suffers from “a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the record” due to the fact that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 1920.2(b)."

>