Opinion
November 10, 1982.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination of employment — Burden of proof — Scope of appellate review.
1. In an unemployment compensation case involving a voluntary termination of employment, the burden of proof on eligibility rests with the employee. [10]
2. In an unemployment compensation case, when the party with the burden of proof has not met that burden before the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the scope of review of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is limited to determining whether the Board's findings are consistent with each other and with the legal conclusions, and whether such findings can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence; the testimony is examined in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the Board. [10-11]
Submitted on briefs September 13, 1982, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges BLATT and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2525 C.D. 1980, from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Hayden Bruder, No. B-188262.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Appeal denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Jay M. Berger, for petitioner.
Steven J. Neary, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Bruder appeals an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order affirming a referee's denial of benefits. We affirm.
Bruder left work after an altercation with his employer over Bruder's off-hours business activities. The referee found that Bruder had voluntarily quit under Section 402(b). The Board affirmed the referee.
Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b).
Bruder contends that he was fired. In a "voluntary quit" case, the burden of proving a right to unemployment compensation rests with the claimant. Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commw. 522, 367 A.2d 366 (1976). The referee is the arbiter of credibility. Winder v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 Pa. Commw. 339, 439 A.2d 1344 (1982). In that capacity, he concluded that Bruder had not met his burden.
When the burdened party below has not met that burden, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board's fact findings are consistent with each other, and with the legal conclusions, and whether such findings can be sustained without capricious disregard of competent evidence. Helsel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commw. 320, 323, 421 A.2d 496, 498 (1980). We must examine the testimony in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed below, Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 355, 378 A.2d 829, 831 (1977). We find that no evidence was capriciously disregarded below.
"Capricious disregard" has been defined as the deliberate disregard of competent testimony which one of ordinary intelligence could not possibly have avoided in reaching the result. Houff Transfer, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commw. 238, 241, 397 A.2d 42, 44 (1979).
Affirmed.
ORDER
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review Order No. B-188262, dated October 2, 1980, is hereby affirmed.