Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOSEPH RABINOWITZ v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (RABINOWITZ UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.) (01/14/55)

January 14, 1955

JOSEPH RABINOWITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW. (RABINOWITZ UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.)



Appeal, No. 300, Oct. T., 1954, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated June 9, 1954, decision No. B-36758, in re claim of Joseph Rabinowitz. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Michael C. Rainone Philadelphia, submitted a brief for appellant.

William L. Hammond, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Frank F. Truscott, Attorney General, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside And Ervin, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 236]

OPINION BY RHODES, P. J.,

In this unemployment compensation case the bureau held claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits because he had voluntarily left his work without good cause under section 402 (b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1936, as amended by the Act of August 24, 1953, P.L. 1397, § 4, 43 PS § 802 (b). The claimant appealed and a hearing was held before a referee in the State of New Jersey, where

[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 237]

    claimant resides. His testimony was offered in evidence at a subsequent hearing before a referee in Pennsylvania. Such referee affirmed the bureau's disallowance of benefits. The claimant then appealed to the Board of Review, which held a further hearing. The Board affirmed the referee's decision but modified it by changing the disqualification from section 402 (b) to section 401 (d) of the Law. Section 401 (d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1936, as amended, 43 PS § 801 (d), requires as a qualification for the securing of compensation that the employe "(d) Is able to work and available for suitable work;..."

Claimant resides in Lakewood, New Jersey. He was last employed, from June 2, 1952, until January 12, 1954, by Kaiser Metal Products, Inc., Bristol, Pennsylvania. Bristol is approximately fifty-five miles from claimant's home in Lakewood. When working, claimant usually commuted in the automobile of a fellow workman, as claimant did not drive an automobile.

Claimant was employed as a subforeman in charge of a repair crew. This work frequently made it necessary for him "to creep and crawl through small spaces." In the fall of 1953 he began to suffer from sciatica and arthritis. The increasing severity of this condition finally made it impossible for him to perform his duties, and, on October 17, 1953, he was placed on sick leave by the company. Although he subsequently recovered to the extent that he was able to do light work, as of the times of the hearings the condition of his health was still such as to make impossible the performance of the regular work in which he had been employed. Assuming that light work was available with the same employer, he was unable to obtain daily transportation to Bristol because the

[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 238]

    workman with whom he formerly rode to work had been transferred to a different shift. Public transportation facilities between Lakewood and Bristol appear impractical for daily commuting. On January 12, 1954, therefore, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.