# Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Gochenauer

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · August 5, 1975 · 21 Pa. Commw. 23

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6362593

## Case

- **Full name:** Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Robert F. Gochenauer
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 5, 1975
- **Citations:** 21 Pa. Commw. 23; 342 A.2d 504; 1975 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1143
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bowman
- **Judges:** Blatt, Bowman, Crumlish, Kramer, Mencer, Rogers, Wilkinson
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6362593

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
President Judge Bowman :
We have repeatedly held that a capricious disregard of competent evidence occurs when there is a wilful and deliberate disregard of competent testimony and relevant evidence which one of ordinary intelligence could not possibly have avoided in reaching a result. Sherred v. Pittsburgh, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 401 , 299 A.2d 381 (1973).
In considering the critical testimony of the claimant and his employer upon which the Board predicated its findings of fact 4 and 5, I cannot conclude that the Board capriciously disregarded either the testimony of the claimant or the employer. At best, the testimony of both is equivocal and ambiguous on the critical fact issue of whether claimant did or did not quit. The meaning and weight to be given to such testimony is for the fact *30 finder. In performing this function, I cannot find that it deliberately disregarded the testimony of either or that considered together such testimony required the Board to reach a contrary result.
I dissent.
Judge Wilkinson joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6362593. Public record. Not legal advice.