Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lowman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 24, 2018No. 686 C.D. 2016Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING & DISSENTING OPINION BY

JUDGE McCULLOUGH

Although I concur in the result reached, by the thoughtful Majority, I must re.-: spectfully depart from its reasoning and application of precedent in unemployment-compensation law. Based on this record, we are compelled to apply the standard test as developed and endorsed by our Supreme Court and more fully discussed herein.

Here, Donald Lowman (Claimant) separated from his employer in the behavioral health field, Resources for Human Development, and filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. Before the local service center issued a…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Lopez Carrasquillo v. RubianesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
  2. Danielle Viktor, Ltd. v. Department of Labor & IndustrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Venango Newspapers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  4. Salamak v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Glatfelter Barber Shop v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008

16 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