Procito v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurrence
CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
Both the majority and Judge Friedman’s dissenting opinion discuss at length the “follow the spouse” doctrine, while, at oral argument, counsel for Joan Procito (Claimant) only argued that her domestic circumstances were such that she had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit work. The Board does not disagree with that proposition, stating that she could have been eligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Act, but she had not set forth evidence under any theory that would have allowed for recovery. Because I agree with the Board that she has…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation CaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Wallace v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Truitt v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REVIEWSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Beachem v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.