| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
principal means of livelihood |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant worked in his wife's restaurant from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., seven days a week. He didn't receive any remuneration for that work. FCA found that the Umpire didn't give full effect to the Jouan decison when he concluded that because claimant worked gratuitously to assist his spouse, his employment was minor in extent. Court concluded that when applying the Jouan analysis to this case the evidence shows that claimant's involvement in the business was not so minor in extent that one would not normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
minor in extent |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant worked in his wife's restaurant from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., seven days a week. He didn't receive any remuneration for that work. FCA found that the Umpire didn't give full effect to the Jouan decison when he concluded that because claimant worked gratuitously to assist his spouse, his employment was minor in extent. Court concluded that when applying the Jouan analysis to this case the evidence shows that claimant's involvement in the business was not so minor in extent that one would not normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| week of unemployment |
work without earnings |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant worked in his wife's restaurant from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., seven days a week. He didn't receive any remuneration for that work. FCA found that the Umpire didn't give full effect to the Jouan decison when he concluded that because claimant worked gratuitously to assist his spouse, his employment was minor in extent. Court concluded that when applying the Jouan analysis to this case the evidence shows that claimant's involvement in the business was not so minor in extent that one would not normally follow it as a principal means of livelihood.
