Appeal, No. 181, April T., 1961, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-62600, in re claim of Clara I. Nicholson. Decision affirmed.
Richard F. Maize, with him Braemer and Maize, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 601]
OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming the determinations of the Bureau of Employment Security and reversing the Referee wherein the Board concluded that the claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits under the provisions of section 402(b)(1), 43 P.S. 802(b)(1), on the ground that she voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
Claimant was last employed as a selector by Anchor Hocking Class Corporation, Connellsville, Pa. Her last day of work was April 23, 1960. Claimant was granted a leave of absence and entered a hospital in Connellsville on April 24, 1960, and underwent surgery
[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 602]
on April 25, 1960. She was discharged from the hospital on May 2, 1960, and returned to her home in Normalville where she was treated by her physician on May 16, June 3 and 17, 1960. She later left Normal-ville and went first to her sister's home in Columbia, South Carolina, and then to her mother's home in Sumter, South Carolina.
On June 27, 1960, claimant's attending physician certified that claimant was able to return to work as of July 15, 1960. On July 26, 1960, claimant sent a letter to her employer, stating in part as follows:
"... my health has been very bad and due to this fact, I will not be able to return to work. I will appreciate it if you will terminate my employment with Anchor Hocking, since I have not been able to come back ..."
Claimant contends that she is entitled to benefits because on July 1, 1960, her husband, who was out of work, made a trip to South Carolina to see the claimant and decided that there was a greater possibility of securing employment in South Carolina and that they would make their home there. Consequently, she claims her unemployment was due to leaving work to accompany or to join her spouse in a new locality, and since she had been the main support of her family for a period in excess of six months prior to moving, and since the new locality ...