Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Sharon Simpson, No. B-120846-B.
Walter L. Ferst, with him Weinstein and Factor, for appellant.
Susan Shinkman, Assistant Attorney General, with her Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 246]
Sharon Simpson (claimant) was employed as a floor hand for the Hugh Nelson Columbia Carpet Mills (employer). She was injured at work on February 22, 1973, and, after being treated for a period of a month and a half by a doctor associated with the employer's insurance carrier she was told that she had sufficiently recovered to do sedentary work, and she returned to work on May 4, 1973. Although she worked that day, she felt she was not recovered enough to continue working and so she did not return to work the next day but at once began treatments with a private physician who did not release her for work until September 5, 1973. When she then contacted her employer in regard to returning to work, however, she was informed that she had been replaced.
The claimant applied for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn1 (Law) on October 28,
[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 2471973]
, but benefits were denied by the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) which held that she had voluntarily left work without good cause and was, therefore, ineligible under the provisions of Section 402(b)(1) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1). This decision was affirmed by the referee and by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), but, upon appeal to this Court, the case was remanded to the Board for the purpose of taking additional testimony and reconsidering its decision. After another hearing, the Board issued a new order again affirming the referee and denying benefits. This appeal followed.
In unemployment compensation cases, our scope of review is limited to questions of law and, absent fraud, to a determination of whether or not necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Finn, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 512, 360 A.2d 288 (1976). The claimant argues here that the Board's finding that she failed to maintain her employer-employee relationship during the period of her recovery is not supported by the evidence.
Section 402(b)(1) of the Law, provides in pertinent part:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --
(b)(1) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous ...