Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sharp Equipment Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 18, 2002Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

I respectfully concur and dissent. I agree with the majority that the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) correctly determined that Martha J. Lykens (Claimant) was an employee of Sharp Equipment Company (Employer), not an independent contractor. However, I disagree that, after the Board made that determination, the Board erred in failing to consider whether Claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily leaving her employment with Employer.

The regulation at 34 Pa.Code § 101.87 (emphasis added) provides as…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wing v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Hine v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Classic Personnel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Mauro v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API