| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
presumption |
|
Summary:
Attending a full-time course raises a presumption of non-availability. But claimant may rebut it by evidence to the contrary. Merely stating she is available and she would leave the course does not suffice. Obtaining work must be a primary concern. Convincing proof is job search.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
job search |
|
Summary:
The only evidence submitted by claimant was a list of employers who would be willing to hire someone to work during the hours in which she was not taking classes. There is, however, nothing to indicate that she contacted any of these employers to enquire about obtaining work.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
pattern study-work long ago |
|
Summary:
Her mere statement that she would be willing to leave the course together with a work pattern established 7 or 8 years ago while in attendance at high school are not sufficient evidence to support a finding of availability when there was no effort beingmade to find employment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
courses |
weight of statements |
|
Summary:
Attending a full-time course raises a presumption of non-availability. But claimant may rebut it by evidence to the contrary. Merely stating she is available and she would leave the course does not suffice. Obtaining work must be a primary concern. Convincing proof is job search.
