Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

PUGH UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (09/16/59)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


September 16, 1959

PUGH UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.

Appeal, No. 274, Oct. T., 1959, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-50902, in re claim of Minnie May Pugh. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Christopher F. Edley, with him Moore, Lightfoot & Edley, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Hirt

[ 190 Pa. Super. Page 435]

OPINION BY HIRT, J.

Claimant was last employed by William Penn Laundry in Philadelphia; her last day of work was August 20, 1958. On that date she was approximately five months advanced in pregnancy. After 12 days in a hospital following the above date she did not report back for work because her doctor advised against any work which required her to stand while performing it. She did not request lighter work nor did she apply for a leave of absence.

Based on these undisputed facts the bureau and the referee denied benefits on the ground that claimant voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause, under § 402(b) of the Law, 43 PS § 802. The Board of Review affirmed the decision but for a different reason. The board found that claimant was not available for work and was disqualified for that reason under § 401(d) of the Law, 43 PS § 801.

In Sturdevant Unemployment Comp. Case, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 548, 45 A.2d 898, we said that the basic purpose of proving availability "is to establish that a claimant is actually and currently attached to the labor force." And the holding of that case is that one who has left his employment upon good cause does not in itself entitle the employe to benefits. It must also be shown that such claimant meets the "availability for work test" required by the statute. Muller Unempl. Compensation Case, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 52, 84 A.2d 257. This claimant, because of a disabling physical condition was unable to work and she therefore was disqualified under § 401(d) since she was not available for work.

Disposition

Decision affirmed.

19590916

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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