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.

MARZOLF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (06/13/62)

June 13, 1962

MARZOLF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 25, April T., 1962, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-66787, in re claim of Harry Marzolf. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Benjamin W. Haseltine, Jr., for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

Author: Flood

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 204]

OPINION BY FLOOD, J.

The claimant appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review holding him ineligible for benefits under section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS ยง 802(b)(1), on the ground that he voluntarily left work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.

The claimant had been employed as a heater in a steel mill for thirty-four years. He testified that several months before September 20, 1961, his sixty-fifth birthday, he began to feel unduly fatigued by his duties which involved the operation of grappling hooks weighing from fifty to seventy pounds. He concluded that the work involved in the job of heater was "getting too heavy" for him. Although he knew he could retire on pension at age sixty-five or he could go on working past that age, provided he requested and passed a qualifying

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 205]

    physical examination, he did not request any physical examination. Instead, he made numerous requests to be assigned to lighter work. When he was told that no lighter work was available and that he had to continue working as a heater or retire, he voluntarily retired.

At the first hearing the referee questioned the claimant as follows: "Q. Mr. Marzolf, you say this matter of grappling hooks weighing as much as 75 pounds and your other duties became such that it fatigued you? A. That is 100 per cent correct. Q. Did you consult a doctor about your problem of your health? Did you talk to a doctor? A. Oh, we had to go in occasionally to the doctor anyway. Q. Did you go to your own doctor about it? A. At home? Q. Yes, sir, your own doctor, your personal physician? A. Oh, yes, but I didn't tell him that. I have a family physician but I didn't walk in and say, 'I work too hard and don't feel good.' I didn't do that. Q. You felt your ownself without needing to consult a doctor that your work was getting too heavy for you? A. That is exactly correct."

The referee, finding that the claimant could no longer perform the duties required of him, reversed the Burean of Employment Security and awarded the claimant compensation. Both the employer and the bureau appealed.

At a remand hearing ordered by the Board of Review the claimant admitted that he did not consult the company doctor for an examination. He testified that he had no occasion to do so because "they knew I had a double repture ..." Although he testified that he was no longer able to work as a heater because of his double hernia, he admitted that the rupture had occurred some time ago, "possibly three years ago". When asked why the rupture had had no ...


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.