Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Paul E. Crumbling, Sr., No. B-119013.
Fred Kilgore, with him Samuel S. Laucks, Jr. and Laucks & Monroe, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 14 Pa. Commw. Page 547]
Paul E. Crumbling, Sr., claimant, last worked as a pneumatic tube installer for Mosler Airmatics System
[ 14 Pa. Commw. Page 548]
Division, Wayne, New Jersey, his last day of employment being May 31, 1973. On this date, claimant terminated his employment in order to care for his wife at their residence in Wrightsville, Pennsylvania where she was recovering from a traumatic experience which need not be detailed here. Claimant's work had required travelling to job sites three hundred to four hundred miles from his home, and where he was lodged for the week, returning to Wrightsville only on weekends. Before quitting, he had asked his employer for a leave of absence or a transfer to job sites nearer his home to enable him to give daily attendance to his distraught wife.
Claimant applied for unemployment compensation on June 3, 1973. The Bureau of Employment Security and a referee ruled claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Exec. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1), because he had voluntarily left his employment without necessitous and compelling cause. On appeal, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) modified this determination to find claimant disqualified because his termination was due to "marital, filial or other domestic obligations" within the purview of Section 402(b)(2), 43 P.S. § 802(b)(2). We agree, and therefore affirm.
In appeals of this nature, where the decision of the Board is against the party with the burden of proof, our review is limited to whether or not the Board's findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the conclusions and order of the Board, and whether they can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Zysk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 409, 316 A.2d 663 (1974); Diller Unemployment Compensation Case, 200 Pa. Superior Ct. 235, 188 A.2d 844 (1963).
[ 14 Pa. Commw. Page 549]
Section 402(b)(2), which was amended to its present form in 1959,*fn1 ...