Unemployment compensation — Scope of appellate review — Error of law — Capricious disregard of competent evidence — Voluntary termination — Attempt to preserve employment.
1. In an unemployment compensation case where the party with the burden of proof did not prevail below, review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is limited to questions of law and a determination of whether competent evidence was capriciously disregarded.[446]
2. An applicant is properly denied unemployment compensation benefits when evidence supports a finding that he voluntarily terminated his employment by leaving work after an ankle sprain, failed to advise his employer ever of the extent of the injury or his probable length of absence and took no prudent steps to preserve his employment. [447]
OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE CRUMLISH, JR., March 26, 1982:
The Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed a referee's denial of benefits to Nick A. Cillo, finding a voluntary quit under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. 802(b)(1).
Cillo sprained his ankle and informed his employer that he would be out sick. He never notified his supervisor, as required by company policy, as to the extent of his injury or the anticipated length of absence.
In an unemployment compensation case where the party with the burden of proof did not prevail below, our review is limited to questions of law and a determination of whether the Board capriciously disregarded competent evidence. Dennis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 Pa. Commw. 215, 423 A.2d 458 (1980).
Cillo asserts that he did not abandon his employment because he had reason to believe he had been discharged. We disagree.
Although a union representative told Cillo that his employer had mailed a discharge letter, the employer later withdrew the letter and never indicated to Cillo that he was fired.
Additionally, Cillo claims he took reasonable steps to preserve his employment. To the contrary, Cillo never checked on his employment status until he was denied unemployment benefits approximately one month after his initial absence. The record clearly supports the Board's conclusion that Cillo abandoned his job by failing to take prudent steps to preserve his employment. See Simpson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 Pa. Commw. 245, 370 A.2d 432 (1977).
Affirmed.
ORDER
The decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-179356, dated December 31, 1979, is affirmed.
Judge PALLADINO did not participate in the decision in this case.