Alston v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - February 19, 2009
http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1769CD07_2-19-09.pdf
The court reversed the UCBR decision on the merits and remanded the case for a hearing with claimant witnesses whom the referee improperly refused to subpoena.
The court rejected the Board's claim that the witnesses' evidence would be "directly contradictory" to that of the employer and held that it need only lead to "relevant and provative evidence," citing Hamilton v. UCBR, 532 A.2d A.2d 535, 537 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Thursday, February 19, 2009
UC - appeal letter - pro se litigant
Alston v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - February 19, 2009
http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1769CD07_2-19-09.pdf
A letter to the court served as an appeal under Pa. RAP 1514(a) and sec. 67.13 of court internal operating procedure, which gives a pro se claimant 30 days from receipt of timely appeal letter in which to file a proper petition for review.
http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1769CD07_2-19-09.pdf
A letter to the court served as an appeal under Pa. RAP 1514(a) and sec. 67.13 of court internal operating procedure, which gives a pro se claimant 30 days from receipt of timely appeal letter in which to file a proper petition for review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)