standing

In re Miller - Pa. Supreme Court - September 28, 2011

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-75-2010mo.pdf

[T]to obtain judicial resolution of a dispute or challenge, an individual must have standing. An individual has standing only if he or she is aggrieved, i.e., adversely affected or negatively impacted in a real and direct fashion, by the proceedings at issue. Johnson v. American Standard, 8 A.3d 318, 329, 332-33 (Pa. 2010); Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 888 A.2d 655, 659-60 (Pa. 2005).

To demonstrate that he or she is aggrieved, an individual must establish "a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the proceedings.” Johnson, supra at 333. An individual’s interest in the proceedings is substantial if it “surpasses the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law.” Pittsburgh Palisades Park, supra at 660 (citation omitted). An individual’s interest is direct “if there is a causal connection between the asserted violation and the harm complained of,” and the interest is immediate “if that causal connection is not remote or speculative." Johnson, supra at 329 (citation omitted).

disability - hypothetical question - all limitations

Lucero v. Astrue - ED Pa. - September 26, 2011

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/11D1088P.pdf

For the ALJ’s decision to be supported by substantial evidence, the hypothetical question to the vocational expert must “accurately convey all of [the claimant’s] impairments, and the
limitations they cause.”36 In Ramirez v. Barnhart, the Third Circuit held that including a requirement that a job be limited to one- to two-step tasks did not adequately encompass a
finding that the claimant “often” had deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace.37

As the Commissioner correctly notes, the functional scale used to assess concentration, persistence, or pace was changed after the ALJ’s decision in Ramirez. Both the old and new scales comprise five levels of limitation, with “often” at the third level on the old scale, and “moderate” at the third level on the revised scale.38 Therefore, some courts have found “often” and “moderate” to represent equivalent limitations, which must be included in the hypothetical question with specificity.39

Although the hypothetical question here did not refer specifically to Plaintiff’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, it did include limitations to simple repetitive
tasks, with only occasional changes in work setting and occasional contact with the public and coworkers; some courts have found such limitations sufficiently descriptive.40 However, even if
these limitations could be said to encompass moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace in some cases, here the hypothetical question failed to incorporate the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff had exhibited one or two episodes of decompensation, a term which “refers to exacerbations or temporary increases in symptoms or signs, accompanied by a loss of adaptive functioning.”41 Because the Court finds that the ALJ’s hypothetical question did not adequately encompass all of Plaintiff’s limitations, the case will be remanded to the Commissioner.42

----------------

36 Ramirez v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 546, 552 (3d Cir. 2004).

37 Id. at 552.

38 Strouse v. Astrue, No. 07-4514, 2010 WL 1047726, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2010), citing Colon v. Barnhart, 424 F. Supp. 2d 805, 811 (E.D. Pa. 2006); Dynko v. Barnhart, No. 03-3222, 2004 WL 2612260 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2004). However, in an unpublished decision, the Third Circuit distinguished the holding in Ramirez in part by reference to the “often” limitation in that case as opposed to the “moderate” limitation before it. McDonald v. Astrue, 293 F. App’x 941, 946 n.10 (3d Cir.2008) (not precedential). In McDonald, however, the Court found that
there was no support in the record for the claimant’s complaints, but instead, evidence to the contrary. Gayton v. Astrue, No. 08-3667, 2009 WL 1456608, *3 (E.D. Pa. May 19, 2009).

39 Strouse, 2010 WL 1047726 at * 6; Weinsteiger v. Astrue, No. 09-1769, 2010 WL 331903, *10 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2010); Bunch v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-487, 2008 WL 5055741, * 3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2008) (citing cases).

40See Douglas v. Astrue, 2011 WL 482501, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2011) (holding that hypothetical limiting the claimant to unskilled work adequately accounted for moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace); Reid v. Astrue, No. 08-300, 2009 WL 2710243,at *7 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2009) (holding that “because the record does not suggest that Plaintiff’s moderate difficulties in ‘concentration, persistence, and pace” would limit Plaintiff’s ability to perform ‘simple, repetitive tasks,’ there was valid justification for the ALJ’s omission of more
specific references in the hypothetical”).

41 R. 58.

42 Cf. Russo v. Astrue, 421 F. App’x 184, at *7 (3d Cir. 2011) (not precedential) (holding that a hypothetical question that included the limitation that the person “would not have a quota to fulfill” accounted for moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, pace, and decompensation episodes).

govt. agencies - statute of limitations - "nullum tempus" doctrine waived

Selinsgrove Area School District v. Lobar, Inc. - Cmwlth. Court - September 27, 2011


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2310CD10_9-27-11.pdf


In Delaware County v. First Union Corporation, this Court explained:

The doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi generally provides that statutes of limitations do not bar actions brought by a state or its agencies. „Under the doctrine of nullum tempus, statutes of limitations are not applicable to actions brought by the Commonwealth or its agencies unless a statute expressly so provides.‟
929 A.2d 1258, 1261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (quoting City of Phila. v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, Inc., 994 F.2d 112, 118 (3d Cir. 1993)).

Although nullum tempus would ordinarily apply in a case where a school district is suing for damages resulting from negligence in the construction of its facilities,3 in this particular instance the District created and entered into a contract with Lobar which included a clause that defined the timeframe wherein claims could be brought. The issue of whether the District can contractually waive its right to invoke the doctrine of nullum tempus is a matter of first impression.



This Court has held that nullum tempus can in fact be waived. Specifically, this Court found that the doctrine “is subject to waiver when the sovereign plaintiff fails to assert its rights.” Twp. of Ind. v. Acquisitions & Mergers, Inc., 770 A.2d 364, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). The issue before this Court thus becomes whether the District did in fact waive the doctrine by contractual provision.


We hold that where a Commonwealth agency has offered and entered into a contract addressing applicable statutes of limitations with no mention of the nullum tempus doctrine, it would be fundamentally unfair and contrary to public policy in general to permit the agency to nullify provisions of the same contract by subsequently invoking the doctrine. Accordingly, with respect to the contract at issue, we hold that the trial court properly found that the District waived any applicability of the doctrine of nullum tempus.

UC - vol. quit - severance package

Munski v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - September 27, 2011 - precedential, reported

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/193CD11_9-27-11.pdf

The claimant has the burden of establishing that necessitous and compelling reasons existed for leaving his employment. Empire Intimates v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 655 A.2d 662 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).

The claimant must establish "that [he] acted with ordinary common sense in quitting [his] job, that [he] made a reasonable effort to preserve [his] employment, and that [he] had no other real choice than to leave [his] employment." Id. at 664.

In the context of downsizing, we have explained that "mere speculation about one‟s future job circumstances, and attendant benefits, without more, does not render a decision to voluntarily terminate employment necessitous and compelling." Petrill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 883 A.2d 714, 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

The Referee found that Claimant was offered a voluntary EISP and neither Claimant‟s supervisor nor other members of management informed him that his position would be eliminated if he rejected the offer. In light of that factual finding, the Referee concluded that Claimant voluntarily terminated his employment by accepting the plan. Therefore, Claimant did not have a necessitous and compelling reason to resign. Claimant appealed to the Board. The Board adopted the findings and conclusions of the Referee and affirmed without further opinion. The Court affirmed the Board.

(1) FDCPA can protect non-debtors, e.g., husband of debtor (2) intrusion upon seclusion (3) liability of parent company for subsidiary's acts

Berk v. JP Morgan Chase - ED Pa. - September 23, 2011



http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/11D1079P.pdf



Protection of non-debtors

The FDCPA protects individualswho are not debtors provided “such persons . . . claim they are harmed by proscribed debt collection practices.” Yentin v. Michaels, Louis & Assocs., Inc., Civ. A. No. 11-0088, 2011 WL 4104675 at *17 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also H.R. Rep. No. 95-131, at 8 (1977) (“P]eople who do not owe money, but who may be deliberately harassed are the family, employer and neighbors of the consumer . . . are also protected by [the FDCPA].”) Plaintiff here has alleged damages, including his emotional distress, as well as physical symptoms related to his heart condition as a result of the debt collector's conduct.



Intrusion upon seclusion

A claim for intrusion upon seclusion requires a showing of “conduct demonstrating ‘an intentional intrusion upon the seclusion of [a plaintiff’s] private concerns whichwas substantial and
highly offensive to a reasonable person, and [must] aver sufficient facts to establish that the information disclosed would have caused mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of
ordinary sensibilities.’” Boring v. Google Inc., 362 Fed. Appx. 273, 278-79 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Pro Golf Mfg., Inc. v. Tribune Review Newspaper Co., 809 A.2d 243, 247 (Pa. 2002)).



Pennsylvania has adopted the definition of intrusion upon seclusion as set out inRestatement (Second) of Torts, § 652B. Larsen v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 543 A.2d 1181, 1187 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988).Under this definition, there is no liability for a person who demands payment of a debt unless “the telephone calls are repeated with such persistence and frequency as to amount to a course of hounding the plaintiff, that [it] becomes a substantial burden to his existence, that his privacy is invaded.” Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 652B cmt. d (emphasis added).



The Court finds that Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to support a claim for intrusion upon seclusion under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants contacted Plaintiff on approximately twenty or more occasions over two years, at three residences, and on four telephone lines. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff also alleges that these calls persisted even after Defendants were advised that Nancy Berk was Plaintiff’s former wife and he knew nothing about the alleged debt. (Id. ¶ 142.) These allegations are sufficient to support a claim for intrusion upon seclusion. Compare Desmond v. Phillips & Cohen Assoc., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. 2d 562, 568 (W.D. Pa. 2010) (allowing intrusion upon seclusion claim to go to the jury based on debt collector’s fourteen calls, four letters, and several messages left on the plaintiff’s answering machine, holding that whether the intrusion was “highly offensive to a reasonable person is a question of fact for the jury to decide.”), with Stuart v. AR Res., Inc., Civ. A. No. 10-3520, 2011 WL 904167 (E.D. Pa. March 16, 2011) (dismissing intrusion upon seclusion claimdespite defendant debt collector’s persistent phone calls and profane and abusive language because the of failure to plead the number or substance of calls).



Liability of parent company for acts of subsidiary

The Third Circuit has emphasized that “mere ownership of a subsidiary does not justify the imposition of liability on the parent.” Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp., 247 F.3d 471, 484 (3d Cir. 2001). Instead, parental liability for a subsidiary’s acts is appropriate either when a subsidiary is not a separate and independent corporation, but rather the alter ego of the parent company, or if the subsidiary is an agent for the parent in a specific transaction. Phoenix Canada Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1476-77 (3d Cir. 1988). To determine if two corporations are separate, courts consider “adequacy of capitalization, overlapping directorates and officers, separate record keeping, payment of taxes and filing of consolidated returns,maintenance of separate bank accounts, level of parental financing and control over the subsidiary, and subsidiary authority over day-to-day operations.” Id. at 1476.


Chase argues that Berk sets forth no allegations of wrongdoing by Chase Co., but rather he seeks to hold Chase Co. liable for the acts of another. However, Plaintiff alleges both overlapping
officers and authorityover day-to-day operations, aswell as specific actions taken by Chase Co. Berk alleges that he forwarded theMemeger letter to Chase Co.’s general counsel and to amember of the Chase Co. Board of Directors. Plaintiff also alleges that he received a call from Russell, who stated that he was calling at the direction of the Chase Co. general counsel. Plaintiff also alleges a letter that he sent to Chase Co. general counsel, which was responded to by Palladino from Chase Auto Finance. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the three
Chase Defendants all maintain principal offices at the same location. Plaintiff sufficiently alleges actions undertaken either by or at the direction of Chase Co. Thus, the Court
denies Chase’s motion to dismiss any remaining claims against Chase Co., and Plaintiff’s claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase Bank”),
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“Chase Co.”) will remain.

Admin. law - finding of fact "wholly inapplicable" to claimant - remand

Spence v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - September 23, 2011

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/412CD11_9-23-11.pdf

Claimant quit her job and applied for UC. The UCBR denied her claim, adopting the referee's findings, and making its own additional finding that the "[Board] after considering the entire record in this matter, concludes that the determination made by the Referee is proper under the [Law]. The Board specifically finds the claimant incredible that the father of her two young children could not watch the children while the claimant worked. Therefore, the Board adopts and incorporates the Referee’s findings and conclusions …."

It is undisputed that Claimant is a single mother of one child and that the finding "directly conflicts with the facts of record." Her appeal is not predicated upon a single erroneous finding that is unnecessary to the ultimate disposition. Claimant appeals because the Order appears wholly inapplicable to her case.

Although the finding set forth by the Board is not necessary to the conclusion regarding eligibility for benefits under Section 402(b) [the case involved a voluntary retirement package], its inclusion calls into question whether the Board was reviewing the record pertaining to Claimant. Where nothing in the body of the Order references Claimant, and the single specific finding does not pertain to Claimant, we must remand to ensure due process. Beddis v. UCBR, 6 A.3d 1053 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (claimant is entitled to due process in UC proceedings); see, e.g., Aluminum Co. of Amer. (Alcoa) v. UCBR, 324 A.2d 854 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974).

UC - offer of suitable work - notice to UCSC - 43 P.S. §802(a)

Barnett v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - September 20, 2011 - unreported memorandum decision



http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/314CD11_9-20-11.pdf



The Employer failed to comply with Section 402(a) of the Law, which states that an employer that offers suitable work to a claimant must notify the UC Service Center “of such offer within seven (7) days after the making thereof.” 43 P.S. §802(a). Claimant does not challenge the finding that Employer’s notice was six days late, i.e., 13 days after it offered Claimant her former job.



This Court has held that strict compliance with the notice provision of Section 402(a) is not required where it would be inconsistent with the objectives of the Law and where the claimant is not prejudiced by the delay. McKeesport Hospital v. UCBR, 619 A.2d 813, 815 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). In McKeesport Hospital, notice to the UC Service Center was five days late. This Court held that the notice requirement of Section 402(a) was directory and not mandatory, stating that "we cannot declare claimants to be eligible and grant them benefits merely as a result of rigid application of technical standards where, otherwise, said claimants are clearly ineligible. To do so would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and intent of the Act, which is to provide a semblance of economic security to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Id. (quoting Barillaro v. UCBR, 387 A.2d 1324, 1328 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978)).



We explained that Section 402(a) acts as a time bar to an Employer’s recall request only when the delay in notifying the unemployment authorities is so great that it prejudices the claimant. For example, prejudice to a claimant may occur where the claimant receives benefits to which she is not entitled and becomes subject to “no fault recoupment.” Here, Claimant does not claim that she was prejudiced by Employer’s delay; rather, she argues that Section 402(a) demands strict compliance. That is simply not the case, as was established in McKeesport Hospital. Based on this Court’s holding in that case, and the fact that the delay in the present case was only one day longer, we hold that Employer fundamentally complied with Section 402(a)’s notice provision. Claimant, who has neither alleged nor demonstrated she was prejudiced by Employer’s six day delay, may not invoke that notice provision to overcome her ineligibility for benefits.



_________________



The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code § 67.55. Citing Judicial Opinions.

disability - ALJ failure to consider, discuss all relevant evidence - Mag. Judge v. ALJ - remand

Miller v. Astrue - ED Pa. - September 2011

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/11D1040P.pdf

According to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, “an ALJ may not reject pertinent or probative evidence without explanation.” Johnson, 529 F.3d at 204. An “ALJ’s failure to explain his implicit rejection of [] evidence or even to acknowledge its presence [is] error.” Cotter, 642 F.2d at 707. Here, the ALJ implicitly rejected evidence provided in Drs. Swamy’s and Hoch’s RFCs that addressed Miller’s ability to sit, stand/walk, and stoop, and was inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding that Miller can perform light work. Additionally, the ALJ failed to acknowledge the existence of other probative medical evidence.

The ALJ’s failure to discuss and/or explain his reasons for rejecting relevant medical evidence makes it impossible to determine whether the ALJ reached the right result in this case.1 See Cotter, 642 F.2d at 706-07 (“[A]n explanation from the ALJ of the reason why probative evidence has been rejected is required so that a reviewing court can determine whether the reasons for rejection were improper.”)

Because it is impossible to know whether the ALJ properly determined that Miller can perform light work, given the ALJ’s treatment of the probative objective medical evidence, I will remand this case to the Commissioner so that the ALJ can properly consider step four.2 On remand, the ALJ must make specific findings as to all of the probative medical evidence and explain the reasons for rejecting any of this evidence.

n. 2 - The Magistrate Judge recommends that I deny Miller’s request for review of the Commissioner’s final decision to deny benefits. This recommendation is not based on the ALJ’s opinion; rather, it is based on evidence that the Magistrate Judge culled from the records Miller submitted to the ALJ, which the ALJ neglected to mention in his opinion. The Magistrate Judge relies on this additional information to fashion an explanation as to why the ALJ concluded that Miller is capable of performing light work, even though this explanation is lacking in the ALJ’s opinion. The Magistrate Judge must have recognized the deficiencies in the ALJ’s opinion and attempted to correct them by providing her own explanation for the ALJ’s opinion based on the additional evidence that she independently gathered from the record. Despite this valiant effort, it was error for the Magistrate Judge to have done so. See Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 44 n.7 (explaning that a district court can’t attempt to rectify “the ALJ’s failure to consider all of the relevant and probative evidence, . . . by relying on medical records found in its own independent analysis, and which were not mentioned by the ALJ”).

Consumer - duty of good faith and fair dealing - no indpt. cause of action

Boeynaems v. LA Fitness - ED Pa. - September 12, 2011

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/11D1035P.pdf

Section 205 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts states that “[e]very contract imposes on each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement[.]” Kamco Indus. Sales, Inc. V. Lovejoy, Inc., No. 09-1407, 2011 WL 891825, at -24-*7 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2011) (Pollak, J.) (quoting Ash v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 877, 884 n. 2 (Pa. 2007)).

Many courts sitting in diversity have predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will adopt Section 205 to hold that every contract includes an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. See id. at *8 (collecting cases). However, even the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recognized a conflict amongst Pennsylvania lower courts regarding whether that implied duty creates a cause of action. Id.

As the undersigned discussed at length recently, concerning claims by contracting parties, in Goleman v. York Intern. Corp., No. 11–1328, 2011 WL 3330423 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2011) (Baylson, J.), “[u]ntil the Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds otherwise, this Court is inclined to conclude there is no independent cause of action for breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing.” Id. at *6-7 (citing Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604, 617 (3d Cir. 1995)). See also LSI Title Agency, Inc. v. Evaluation Servs., Inc., 951 A.2d 384, 391
(Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (“This court finds that Pennsylvania law would not recognize a claim for breach of [a] covenant of good faith and fair dealing as an independent cause of action separate
from the breach of contract claim since the actions forming the basis of the breach of contract claim are essentially the same as the actions forming the basis of the bad faith claim.”). The
Court concludes, instead, that “a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing merges with a breach of contract claim.” Zaloga v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. of Am.,
671 F. Supp. 2d 623, 631 (M.D. Pa. 2009) (Kosik, J.) (citing Meyer v. Cuna Mut. Group, No. 03-CV-602, 2007 WL 2907276, at *14-15 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2007)). Consistent with the Court’s interpretation of Pennsylvania law, the Boeynams Plaintiffs have, in fact, subsumed their allegations of Defendant’s breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing within their breach of contracts claims.

Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the breach of this implied duty simply incorporate by reference the allegations supporting the breach of contract claims and Plaintiffs allege no additional facts in support. The Court has determined that Boeynams and the Cohens have failed to state a claim for breach of contract and, thus, cannot raise an independent claim for the breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. To the extent that Silver has stated a claim for breach of contract and attempts to rely on those identical facts in support for a contractual good faith claim, this Court concludes that such a claim must merge with Silver’s breach of contract claim.

While Florida law recognized an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing associated with every contract, “a breach of this covenant – standing alone – does not create an independent cause of action.” Intertape Polymer Corp. v. Inspired Technologies, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-289-Orl-GAP-GJK, 2010 WL 2776510, at *4 (M.D. Fla. July 14, 2010) (Presnell, J.) (citing Centurion Air Cargo v. UPS Co., 420 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2005)). Such a claim must not only attach to the “performance of a specific contractual obligation,” Onuss Ortak Nokta Uluslararasi Haberlesme Sistem Servis Bilgisayar Yazilim Danismanlik ve Dis Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Terminal Exchange, LLC, No. 09-80720-CIV-MARRA, 2010 WL 935972, 3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2010) (Marra, J.) (citing Centurion Air, 420 F.3d at 1151; Snow v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 896 So. 2d 787, 792 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)), it “cannot be advanced when the allegations underlying that claim are duplicative of the allegations supporting the breach of contract claim[,]” id. (citing Enola Contracting Svcs, Inc. v. URS Group, Inc., No. 5:08cv2-RS-EMT, -26- 2008 WL 1844612, at* 3 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2008); Trief v. Am. Gen.Life Ins. Co., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1268, 1270 (S.D. Fla. 2006); Shibata v. Lim, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1319 (M.D. Fla. 2000)).

UC - vol. quit - pension reduction speculative

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/892CD10_8-31-11.pdf

PHA v. UCBR - Cmwlth Court - August 31, 2011

The Philadelphia Housing Authority (Employer) petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) finding James T. DiGiacomo (Claimant) eligible for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law1 (Law).

The Board granted UC benefits on the basis that a substantial reduction would have occurred to Claimant’s pension benefits had he not voluntarily resigned.

Because we conclude that the projections about Claimant’s future pension benefits were speculative, we reverse.

UC - indpt. contractor

SkyHawke Technologies v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - August 31, 2011



http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1691CD10_8-31-11.pdf





SkyHawke Technologies LLC, (SkyHawke) petitions for review of the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the Unemployment Compensation Referee‟s (Referee) determination that Ross A. Gershel (Claimant) was not ineligible for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits under Sections 402(h) and 4(l)(2)(B) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).



SkyHawke argues that the Board erred as a matter of law in finding Claimant eligible for UC benefits because Claimant was not an employee, but a self-employed, independent contractor and, therefore, ineligible for UC benefits.



For the following reasons, we reverse the Order of the Board.