# Schwab v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · April 9, 1981 · 58 Pa. Commw. 387

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6367302

## Case

- **Full name:** Virgil Schwab v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 9, 1981
- **Citations:** 58 Pa. Commw. 387; 427 A.2d 789; 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1335
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Blatt
- **Judges:** Blatt, Mencer, Rogers
- **Cited by:** 3 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/6367302

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Blatt:
I regret that I must dissent.
The evidence in the record supports the Board’s finding that the claimant was aware of the employer’s rules as to parking violations and, as a part of his job, was or should have been aware of the location of the fire lane and fire hydrant involved in the fourth violation which resulted in his dismissal. I believe that such conduct rises to the level of willful misconduct, and that an employee who attempts to justify such misconduct by a showing of good cause bears the burden of proving such good cause, Lake v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Common *392 wealth. Ct. 138, 409 A.2d 126 (1979), yet here the Board specifically found that the claimant’s health condition was “insufficient to justify that conduct.”
I agree with the determination made by the Board and, therefore, would conclude that the claimant has not met his burden of proving good cause.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6367302. Public record. Not legal advice.