Sollosi
v.
Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Commonwealth Court of PennsylvaniaSep 7, 1982
68 Pa. Commw. 573 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1982)
68 Pa. Commw. 573449 A.2d 875

September 7, 1982.

Unemployment compensation — Scope of appellate review — Inconsistent findings — Capricious disregard of competent evidence — Corporate officer — Unemployed businessman — Due process.

1. In an unemployment compensation case where the party with the burden of proof does not prevail below, review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is to determine whether findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. [574]

2. A corporate officer and shareholder exercising a substantial degree of control over the family business is properly held to be an unemployed businessman when unemployed and to be ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits, and such a determination does not constitute a denial of due process. [575]

Submitted on briefs to Judges BLATT, WILLIAMS, JR. and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 1213 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Richard Sollosi, No. B-194456.

Application with the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Richard Sollosi, petitioner, for himself.

Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.


Richard Sollosi (Claimant) has appealed the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the order of a referee to deny him benefits as a self-employed businessman under Section 402(h) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), and ordered recoupment of non-fault overpayments pursuant to Section 804(b) of the Law, 43 P. S. § 874.

Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(h).

In an unemployment compensation case, where the party with the burden of proof does not prevail before the Board, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law, and whether the findings can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. McDermott v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commw. 393, 431 A.2d 1140 (1981).

Claimant argues that he is an unemployed employee of a family owned concrete construction company rather than an unemployed businessman as the Board found. In the alternative, Claimant contends that if he is ineligible for compensation due to his status as businessman, then the action constitutes a denial of his due process rights. Following a through review of the record, we find that Claimant's status as a "businessman" is supported by sufficient competent evidence. Claimant is an officer and shareholder of the corporation, and exercises a substantial degree of control as foreman of the corporation 's business. The business is owned entirely by the claimant, his wife, and his father and mother. The facts adduced before the referee are clearly sufficient to categorize Claimant's status as an unemployed businessman. Starinieri v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 447 Pa. 256, 289 A.2d 726 (1972); Kerns v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 28 Pa. Commw. 48, 367 A.2d 334 (1976). As an unemployed businessman, Claimant is ineligible for compensation benefits and Claimant's ineligibility does not amount to a denial of due process. Bagley Huntsberger, Inc. v. Department of Labor Industry, Bureau of Employment Security, 34 Pa. Commw. 488, 383 A.2d 1299 (1978).

Order affirmed.

ORDER

NOW, September 7, 1982, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated April 16, 1981 at No. B-194456 is hereby affirmed.