Skip to main content

Turgeon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Pa. Commw. Ct.April 18, 2013Cited 67 times
Remanded

Case Details

Judge(s)
Friedman, Jubelirer, Simpson
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal from Unemployment Compensation Board of Review decision; case remanded

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court remanded the case to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review for further proceedings regarding the claimant's eligibility for unemployment benefits.

What This Ruling Means

**Turgeon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (2013)** This case involved a dispute over whether a worker named Turgeon was eligible to receive unemployment benefits. When someone loses their job, they can apply for unemployment compensation to help support themselves while looking for new work. However, the state agency that handles these claims - the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review - had denied Turgeon's application for benefits. Turgeon disagreed with this denial and took the matter to court, arguing that the decision was wrong and that he should be eligible for unemployment payments. The court decided not to make a final ruling on whether Turgeon deserved benefits. Instead, it sent the case back to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and told them to take another look at Turgeon's situation and make a new decision with more careful consideration. This matters for workers because it shows that unemployment benefit decisions can be challenged in court when workers believe they've been wrongly denied. If a state agency rushes through a decision or doesn't properly consider all the facts, courts can step in and require them to review the case more thoroughly.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Cesar
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Sep 2013
Remanded
Angel Contreras v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission and Harold L. Simpson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Nov 2015
Dismissed
Tamer K. Embaby, Relator v. Department of Treasury, Department of Employment and Economic Development, ...
Minn. Ct. App.Jan 2026

Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determining that because relator was discharged for employee misconduct, he is ineligible for unemployment benefits. We affirm.

Defendant Win
Valerie Coykendall, Relator v. EquiMed Corporation, Department of Employment and Economic Development, ...
Minn. Ct. App.Nov 2025

In this certiorari appeal from the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ), relator challenges the ULJ's conclusion that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. She argues that (1) the ULJ's determination that she was discharged for employment misconduct was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the ULJ erred by failing to consider any exceptions to ineligibility based on employment misconduct. Because we conclude that the ULJ's determination that relator was discharged for employment misconduct was supported by substantial evidence, and none of the statutory exceptions to ineligibility based employment misconduct apply, we affirm.

Defendant Win
In the Matter of: Benita White
Minn. Ct. App.Apr 2024

Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge's determination that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was neither available for nor actively seeking suitable employment. We affirm.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.