UC - willful misconduct - no substantial evidence

Francois v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - April 13, 2011 - unreported memorandum decisions http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1059CD10_4-13-11.pdf Where the only evidence of claimant's alleged violation of the employer no-call/no-show policy was the claimant testimony, in which she denied any violations, substantial evidence did not support the Board's finding of willful misconduct. The court remanded the case, because the Board made an "invalid or inadequate finding of fact."

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

This summary and others are available at the PLAN Legal Updates http://planupdate.blogspot.com/, which is searchable.

Unreported decisions, even although not binding precedent, can be cited for their persuasive value , pursuant to 210 Pa. Code § 67.55 http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/210/chapter67/chap67tochtml#67.55.

admin. law - petition for review - specificity - Deal

http://pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol41/41-16/646.html

THE COURTS

Title 210—APPELLATE PROCEDURE

PART I. RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

210 PA. CODE CH. 15 

Amendment of Explanatory Comment to Rule 1513 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure; No. 210 Appellate Procedural Rules Doc.

41 Pa.B. 1999 - Saturday, April 16, 2011

Order

Per Curiam

 And Now, this 31st day of March, 2011, upon the recommendation of the Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been submitted without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3) in the interests of justice and efficient administration:

 It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that the Explanatory Comment to Rule 1513 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure is amended in the following form.

 This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective in thirty days.

Annex A

TITLE 210. APPELLATE PROCEDURE

PART I. RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

ARTICLE II. APPELLATE PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 15. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF GOVERNMENTAL DETERMINATIONS

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Rule 1513. Petition for Review.

*  *  *  *  *

Explanatory Comment—2011

With respect to the general statement of objections in an appellate jurisdiction petition for review required in subdivision (d)(5), see Maher v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 983 A.2d 1264, 1266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).

_______________

Here is a link to Maher http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1843CD08_10-27-09.pdf

The Court in Maher affirms the decisions in Deal v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 878 A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) and Patla v. UCBR, 962 A.2d 724 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), that the Petition for Review must do more than re-state the statutory language about appeals. It must articulate some specific challenge to the UCBR decision.