Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature — Burden of proof — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Scope of appellate review — Consistent findings — Capricious disregard of competent evidence — Health problems — Medical evidence.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, unless he proves that such termination was for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. [364]
2. 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 to determine whether findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law and can be sustained without capriciously disregarding competent evidence. [364-5]
3. An unemployment compensation claimant asserting that problems of health constituted a necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily terminating employment must present competent, medical evidence to establish that at the time of termination adequate health reasons existed to justify the termination. [365-6]
OPINION BY JUDGE PALLADINO, December 23, 1981:
Claimant appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which, without taking additional evidence affirmed a referee's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). We affirm.
Act, of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1), which states in pertinent part:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week —
. . . .
(b)(1) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. . . .
Pursuant to the Act of July 10, 1980, P.L. 521, Section "402(b)(1)" is now Section "402(b)" of the Law, 43 P. S. § 802 (b).
Claimant voluntarily terminated his employment after working four days as a carton assembler. In this appeal Claimant challenges the Board's determination that he is ineligible for benefits because he quit his job without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
"In voluntary termination cases, the burden is up-on the employee to prove [a] necessitous and compelling reason for leaving. . . ." Ruckstuhl v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa. Commw. 302, 305, 426 A.2d 719, 721 (1981). Where, as here, the party with the burden of proof did not prevail before the Board, this Court's scope of review consists of determining whether the findings of fact can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence and are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law. Helsel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commw. 320, 421 A.2d 496 (1980).
Claimant contends that he was forced to abandon his employment because his activities as a carton assembler caused his wrist to swell. To establish compelling health reasons,
a claimant must: '(1) offer competent testimony that
at the time of [
his]
termination adequate health reasons existed to justify termination; (2) inform the employer of the health problem; and (3) specifically request the employer to transfer [him] to a more suitable position.' (Emphasis added.) McQuiston v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
37 Pa. Commw. 250, 253,
390 A.2d 317, 318 (1978). The Claimant's failure to meet any one of those three conditions will bar [his] claim for unemployment compensation benefits.
Ruckstuhl v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa. Commw. at 305, 426 A.2d at 721.
Claimant did not present any competent medical evidence to prove that his work adversely affected his health. Ruckstuhl; Goughnour v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commw. 83, 420 A.2d 30 (1980). "The only evidence to this effect was [Claimant's] own [testimony] and we have previously held that such evidence is insufficient to establish the existence of adequate health reasons for termination." Steffy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 51 Pa. Commw. 16, 18, 413 A.2d 483, 484 (1980). "A claimant asserting health reasons must present medical evidence to establish that his or her employment was terminated for reasons of health." Goughnour v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commw. at 86, 420 A.2d at 32.
Because Claimant failed to prove the first of the three criteria, Claimant cannot successfully aver health problems as justification for leaving employment. Therefore, we enter the following
ORDER
AND NOW, December 23, 1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-186160, Appeal No. B-80-6-T-214, dated July 24, 1980, is affirmed.