Opinion
Argued April 7, 1980
June 10, 1980.
Unemployment compensation — Scope of appellate review — Remand — Health.
1. When the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is against the party with the burden of proof, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is limited on review to a determination of whether the findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. [133]
2. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania cannot order a remand in an unemployment compensation case in the absence of a conclusion that the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review failed to make findings necessary to resolve the issues which were raised by the evidence and which are relevant to a decision. [133]
3. An unemployment compensation claimant who has health reasons to advance as justification for leaving his duties must produce supporting evidence at the hearing. [133-4]
Argued April 7, 1980, before Judges BLATT, CRAIG and WILLIAMS, JR., sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2225 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Robert J. Dandy, No. B-163330.
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.
Andrew F. Erba, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Robert Dandy (claimant) appeals here from adverse decisions of the Office of Employment Security, a referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) as to his request for unemployment benefits.
The claimant was last employed by the Diagnostic Rehabilitation Center in Philadelphia as a client-aide, his primary duty being to assist alcoholics in the rehabilitation program offered at the center. He worked daily from 11:30 P.M. until 7:30 A.M. and his workload had been increased when the staff was reduced shortly before the termination of his employment. All of the compensation authorities determined that he was ineligible for benefits because he had voluntarily left his work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. He now contends, however, that health reasons justified his leaving and, although he did not advance this justification at the referee's hearing, he asks us to remand his case to the Board for the presentation of "newly obtained evidence."
Pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1).
It is clear that, when the decision of the Board is against the party with the burden of proof, we are limited to a determination of whether or not the findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Cooper, 25 Pa. Commw. 256, 360 A.2d 293 (1976). It is also clear that we cannot order a remand in the absence of a conclusion that the Board failed to make findings necessary to resolve the issues which were raised by the evidence and which are relevant to a decision. See Wenrich v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commw. 186, 382 A.2d 1303 (1978). Here the referee concluded that the claimant left work because he was dissatisfied with his working conditions, and there is ample testimony in the record to support such a finding. If the claimant had health reasons to advance as to his justification for leaving his duties, he had every opportunity to produce supporting evidence at the hearing.
In any event it is our opinion that the "newly discovered evidence" offered by the claimant would not change the result. The evidence, consisting of an employer's affidavit and a physician's report fail to establish that adequate health reasons existed at the time of his termination to justify it as required by Deiss v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 475 Pa. 547, 381 A.2d 132 (1977).
The order of the Board will therefore be affirmed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.