REMUNERATION, Unemployed, Attorney practicing law, Burden of proof, Compensation received, Eligibility
CITE AS: Phillips v UCC, 323 Mich 188 (1948).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Pleasant I. Phillips
Employer: Winters and Crampton Corp.
Docket No: B7 15029 8250
SUPREME COURT HOLDING: (1) The claimant has the burden of proof as to eligibility. (2) An attorney who practices law 8 to 12 hours per day is not unemployed. (3) Compensation earned, not compensation received, is the test of remuneration.
FACTS: The claimant, an attorney, began practicing law in 1900.He performed factory work " ... from August 12, 1944, until October 6, 1947, when he was laid off due to lack of work. He continued in the practice of law, maintaining a law office in which he spent from 8 to 12 hours per day." The receipts from the law office were $31.00 in the 7 weeks following the claimant's layoff.
DECISION: The claimant is not unemployed.
RATIONALE: "We believe that the words 'unemployed individual' are used in [Section] 28 in their ordinarily accepted sense and that, taken in that light, one who is engaged in rendering service for remuneration or who devotes his time to the practice of a profession by which a living is customarily earned cannot be said to be unemployed."
"Remuneration earned, not remuneration received, is the test under this section. Efforts expended in those weeks may well have earned fees paid at a subsequent date, a thing not at all unusual in a law practice."
"The burden was on plaintiff to prove his eligibility under [Section] 48. Dwyer v Unemployment Compensation Commission, 321 Mich 178. From the record it does not appear that he sustained that burden."