Appeal, No. 139, Oct. T., 1959, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-44991-B, in re claim of Harry McDaniel. Decision affirmed.
Sheldon Tabb, with him Edward Davis, for claimant, appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Abraham L. Shapiro, with him Nathan B. Feinstein, and Cohen, Shapiro and Cohen, for employer, intervening appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 632]
This is an appeal by the claimant, Harry McDaniel, from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which disallowed compensation on the grounds that the claimant was not able to work and was not available for suitable work under section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937), 2897, as amended, 43 PS § 801(d).
Section 401 of the Unemployment Compensation Law sets forth the qualifications required to secure compensation and provides, inter alia, "compensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed, and who -... (d) Is able to work and available for suitable work;".
The board concluded that the claimant was not available for work at the time he filed his application for benefits. Where, as here, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is against the party having the burden of proof, the question on appellate review is whether the board's findings of fact are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law and order and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Hogan Unemployment Compensation Case, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 554, 83 A.2d 386 (1951); Weiland Unemployment Compensation Case, 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 554, 76 A.2d 457 (1950); Bako Unemployment Compensation Case, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 222, 90 A.2d 309 (1952).
The evidence shows that the claimant was last employed as a fireman by the Crown Paper Board Company, Inc. He discontinued work on January 16, 1956, because his eyesight had failed to such an extent that he was unable to perform the duties of his regular work. He was under medical care until November 19, 1956, by which time he had become totally and permanently
[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 633]
blind. On December 3, 1956, the claimant registered for work with the Bureau of Employment Security and filed an application for unemployment compensation. The bureau first held that the claimant was not eligible for compensation, then revised its determination and held he was eligible. Upon appeal, the referee ...