# Evanson v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 6, 1982 · 66 Pa. Commw. 411

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6368258

## Case

- **Full name:** Sandra L. Evanson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 6, 1982
- **Citations:** 66 Pa. Commw. 411; 444 A.2d 1317; 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1267
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bbatt
- **Judges:** Bbatt, Blatt, Crumlish, Mencer, Reached, Resignation, 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/6368258

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Judge Bbatt:
Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion, I do not believe that our Supreme Court’s decision in Penn Hills School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 496 Pa. 620 , 437 A.2d 1213 (1981), diminishes or destroys the authority of those cases in which we held, as summarized by the majority, “that a full-time student who intends to return to school in the fall is rebuttably presumed to be unavailable for work during the summer. (Emphasis added.) See Mirkin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 537 , 430 A.2d 384 (1981); Reardon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 30 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 139 , 373 A.2d 146 (1977).
Penn Hills forbids only the erection of an “irrebuttable presumption that the short term unemployed expecting to return to work are never available for suitable work.” Id. at , 437 A.2d at 1218 (emphasis added). I would agree with the Board, therefore, that the “full-time” student cases have not been abrogated by Penn Hills.
Here, however, the claimant had not previously been a full-time student, but rather was a member of the work-force. The Board, therefore, erred as a matter of law in applying the full-time student cases in this situation. And, inasmuch as the findings below indicate that this claimant established 1 that she was *416 available for suitable work up until 2 ber full-time studies began, I would reverse tbe Board’s order.
The Board adopted the referee’s factual finding that the claimant was “seeking employment from two different sources which would be full-time now thru August. . . .” Also, the majority noted that “the claimant testified that she would accept work at night, *416 and was willing to work as a secretary, bookkeeper, cashier, convenience store clerk, or dishwasher . . . [i]ndeed the claimant had already been interviewed for a summer bookkeeping position.”
Here, where the claimant had previously been, not a full-time student but rather a full-time member of the work-force, I believe that the Board was premature, under Penn Hills, in anticipating that she would not be available for suitable work and in speculating that she actually would enter school.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6368258. Public record. Not legal advice.