Opinion

Huyett v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

  • 83 Pa. Commw. 447
  • 477 A.2d 900
  • 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1533
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jul 2, 1984
Status
Published
Author
MacPhail
On the bench
Doyle, MacPhail, Only, Williams
Cited by
3 cases

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge MacPhail:

I respectfully dissent.

The majority would grant unemployment compensation benefits because the Board’s finding of deliberateness is unsupported by legally admissible evi *451 deuce. It does not appear that the Board made a specific finding on the matter of deliberateness but such a finding is implicit in the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s action constituted willful misconduct. I do not see how the Board could conclude otherwise in view of the claimant’s own testimony that he knew he had been arrested and in spite of that knowledge of which he had no doubt (n.t. 10), he answered a question on the employment application regarding his arrest record with a simple “no”.

If the claimant was as sincere then as he is now that he really thought his arrest did not “count” because the charges were later withdrawn, I believe the employer could reasonably expect him to offer some explanation for his answer at the time he filled out the application.

In addition, the fact that the Board concluded that claimant’s actions constituted willful misconduct notwithstanding claimant’s explanation of his mental processes, clearly indicates to me that it, as the fact-finder, simply did not believe claimant’s explanation.

I would affirm the Board.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.