Appeal, No. 232, April T., 1961, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-63300, in re claim of Louis DiMartino. Decision affirmed.
Ines W. Cordisco, for appellant.
Sydnet 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 606]
In this unemployment compensation case the bureau decided that the appellant had voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature and disqualified him from receiving
[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 607]
benefits under § 402(b)(1) of the Law, 43 PS § 802(b)(1). The referee reversed the bureau and allowed benefits. The board concluded that although appellant was not disqualified under the provisions of § 402(b)(1), he was, nevertheless, ineligible to receive benefits because his activities were so restricted by his physical incapacity that he could not be considered able and available for suitable work within the meaning of § 401(d) of the Law.
The facts as found by the board, if supported by competent testimony, are binding upon up: Lodge unemployment Compensation Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 626, 169 A.2d 305.
Appellant, who had been employed as a machine operator or wire drawer for many years and who was past sixty-five years of age, testified that he was no longer able to do his regular work. He asked his employer for other suitable work but none was available. He then retired under the employer's retirement plan, which is noncompulsory. He draws social security benefits of $119.00 per month and retirement insurance of $57.00 per month. He now claims that he is also entitled to unemployment benefits because he says that he is able to do light work.
Appellant's attorney offered into evidence the report of Dr. Morris A. Rack, who examined the appellant on August 30, 1960. In this report Dr. Rack stated appellant had a right ventricular strain and myocardial damage, compound fracture of the right leg and restriction of the circulation of the right leg. He further stated: "I do feel that the patient could not have done his regular work since the patient's history, shortness of breath, pain in his right leg upon standing for short periods of time or slight exertion with pain in the chest for some reasons ...