Summary
In Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 458 A.2d 334, 335 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983), we explained that "unsubstantiated beliefs standing alone will not suffice" to carry a claimant's burden that she ended her employment with a necessitous and compelling cause.
Summary of this case from Mann v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
April 15, 1983.
Unemployment compensation — Burden of proof — Voluntary termination of employment — Necessitous and compelling cause — Scope of appellate review.
1. In an unemployment compensation case the claimant bears the burden of establishing that she terminated her employment for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature; and when the party with the burden of proof does not prevail before the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the scope of review of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is limited to a determination of whether the findings were made in capricious disregard of evidence in the record or if an error of law was committed. [439]
Submitted on briefs February 28, 1983, to Judges BLATT, WILLIAMS, JR. and BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1990 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Arlene A. Miller, No. B-197075.
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.
William C. Knapp, for petitioner.
Francine Ostrovsky, Associate Counsel, with her Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Arlene A. Miller (claimant) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's decision to deny her benefits on the basis that she voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b).
The claimant was employed as Director of Nursing by the South Hills Convalescent Home (South Hills) until she submitted two written notices of resignation each of which stated that she was leaving due to dissatisfaction with the way the convalescent home was being operated. Specifically, she alleged that South Hills failed to maintain proper levels of care for the patients, that such alleged failure was contrary to state and federal regulations, that in her capacity as Director of Nursing she was charged with the duty of complying with such regulations, and that her employer had placed her, as a professional, in a position where she would have to abrogate her professional responsibility.
Additionally, part of the claimant's reason for quitting was her dissatisfaction with South Hills' firing of an administrator.
It is clear that the claimant bears the burden of establishing that she terminated her employment for cause of a necessitous and compelling reason. Cooper v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 68 Pa. Commw. 614, 450 A.2d 247 (1982). And where, as here, the party with the burden of proof has not prevailed below, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether or not the findings were made in capricious disregard of evidence in the record or if an error of law was committed. Id.
We find that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof. Our review of the record indicates that she failed to establish that South Hills' staffing policies with which she was dissatisfied were criminal or unlawful activities. Her unsubstantiated beliefs standing alone will not suffice. Similarly, her contention that she was forced by South Hills to breach her professional responsibilities was not supported by evidence as to any statute, regulation or professional code of ethics which would be applicable.
See Zinman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 8 Pa. Commw. 649 , 305 A.2d 380 (1973).
The claimant wrote on her petition for appeal to the Board that "I need . . . to know from the Department of Public Health and Welfare if South Hills Convalescent is within compliance. . . ." It appears, therefore, that prior to her resignation, the claimant was not sure that South Hills was not in compliance with applicable regulations. And, before the referee or the Board the claimant has not documented or substantiated her allegations of noncompliance.
We must, therefore, affirm the Board's order denying the claimant benefits.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 1983, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.