66 Pa. Commw. 317 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1982
Opinion by
Bernice S. Harris (Claimant), was denied unemployment compensation benefits by reason of willful misconduct.
Claimant petitioned the Board for reconsideration whereupon the Board vacated the decision issued October 20, 1980 and granted reargument.
In its decision dated January 9, 1981 (which is not attached to Appellant’s brief), the Board found that not only did Claimant’s daughter visit her in an unauthorized area but also that Claimant was aware that her daughter would visit her at her work area during her shift of employment. In its discussion, the Board emphasized that Claimant knew that her daughter would be visiting her and that such visit was in violation of the employer’s policy. Our review of the testimony indicates no basis whatsoever for that critical finding by the Board. Neither brief before this Court addressed that issue.
Where there is no substantial evidence to support a critical finding by the Board, we would be inclined to reverse. In this instance, however, the parties have not mentioned the issue which this Court sees as being paramount and we may not decide the case sua sponte on an issue not addressed by the parties. Wiegand v. Wiegand, 461 Pa. 482, 337 A.2d 256 (1975).
For the reasons hereinbefore set forth we see no alternative but to order reargument of the case to enable the parties to address the last decision of the Board which denied benefits to the Claimant.
It is ordered that this ease be listed for re argument at the next available argument court and that a briefing schedule be established by the Prothonotary.
Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e).
That decision of the Board is attached to Appellant’s brief.