In Pearson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 954 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), the Court offered a better approach for evaluating whether a petition for review contains a "general statement" of issues. In that case, the claimant raised two issues in his petition for review: (1) "the Board failed to 'review all the facts;'" and; (2) "'this case is not strong enough' to withhold unemployment compensation benefits." Pearson, 954 A.2d at 1263. Applying the proviso that "the statement of objections will be deemed to include every subsidiary question fairly comprised therein," PA. R.A.P. 1513(d), the Court construed the claimant's "general statement" of issues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and whether the employer had sustained its burden of proof. In doing so, we looked beyond the four corners of the petition for review and noted that "claimant sufficiently addresses these arguments in his handwritten appellate brief." Pearson, 954 A.2d at 1263. Pearson recognizes that a petition for review should not be considered in a vacuum.