Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 8, 2004Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

I concur with that portion of the majority’s opinion reversing the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s (Board) imposition of a fault overpayment on Michael W. Kelly (Claimant) pursuant to seetion 804(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 However, I disagree with the majority’s determination that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits under the Law because he was not “unemployed” as that term is statutorily defined. To the contrary, I agree with Claimant’s contention that he remained “unemployed”…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Crenshaw v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. American General Life & Accident Insurance v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Laswick v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Pennsylvania Electric Co. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. MiedamaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API