Opinion
Argued October 8, 1976
November 23, 1976.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Cause of necessitous and compelling nature — Burden of proof — Inadequate medical evidence.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, unless she proves that such termination was for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, and such burden is not sustained when the employe produces only her unsupported statement that working conditions adversely affected her health and medical testimony concerning conditions observed only after her termination. [225-6]
Argued October 8, 1976, before President Judge BOWMAN and Judges CRUMLISH, JR. and WILKINSON, JR., sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 70 C.D. 1976, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Barbara A. Denby, No. B-128968.
Application to Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Luther E. Weaver, for appellant.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
The critical issue in this appeal from the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) is whether Barbara A. Denby (Claimant) voluntarily quit her employment with cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
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 undisputed that Claimant voluntarily quit, and it is alleged she did so because she was physically incapable of continuing in her job. Since she voluntarily terminated her employment, the burden rests upon her to show cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Holtz, 19 Pa. Commw. 316, 338 A.2d 690 (1975). Where, as here, she did not consult a physician, her unsupported statement that the working conditions adversely affected her health is insufficient, of itself, to establish good cause for leaving. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 19 Pa. Commw. 391, 338 A.2d 702 (1975). Further, we note that her physician's testimony based on observation after she quit is of little evidentiary value, since Claimant's physician's diagnosis does not adequately explain and buttress the health reasons as they existed on the date of her termination. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude there is substantial evidence of record to support the Board's decision and order. See Elshinnawy v. Commonwealth, 12 Pa. Commw. 597, 317 A.2d 332 (1974).
At the referee's hearing counsel for the employer and Claimant had this dialogue which negates her allegation she quit for medical reasons:
"Q. Your last date of employment was September 25 of 1974, isn't that right?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Now, you left on that day?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Were your medical problems the cause of your leaving that particular day?
"A. Oh, the medical problems at that time . . . moment, they weren't.
"Q. They were not. So they had really nothing to do with your leaving on the 25th, isn't that right?
"A. At the moment that I left — at that time — no it wasn't." (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, we
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of November, 1976, the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying Barbara A. Denby benefits is affirmed.