By Payroll and Entitlements Editorial Staff
The appellate court vacated and remanded the case back to the Board for a new adjudication when it determined that the lower court found that the referee disregarded critical evidence that contradicted contrary evidence without an explanation. The referee simply repeated the findings of the UC Service Center without any discussion instead of reviewing the case de novo and did not resolve conflicts between the testimony of the three witnesses with express credibility determinations. Accordingly, the appellate court held that the Board was required to resolve those conflicts of record testimony (Sean J. Bertram v. UCBR, Pa. Comwth. Ct., No. 12 C.D. 2018, March 22, 2019).
Interested in submitting an article?
Submit your information to us today!Learn More