Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Susie McCarty, No. B-136771.
John M. Humphrey, for petitioner.
Michael Klein, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers and DiSalle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 226]
This is an appeal of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), dated November 12, 1976, affirming a decision of the referee which denied benefits to Susie J. McCarty (claimant) finding the claimant had voluntarily quit work. The sole question presented for decision in this case is whether there is substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant voluntarily left work within the meaning of Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment
[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 227]
Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1). We conclude there is not and must reverse.
Claimant was last employed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission at the Loyalsock Game Farm working in the pheasant raising operation. On her last day of work, July 13, 1976, she was working in the catching pen when a fellow employee threw a pheasant in her face causing a bleeding cut on her chin. It is uncontradicted that claimant immediately told the supervisor of the crew in the catching pen that she was going home. It is quite apparent that he understood the reason for her leaving, inasmuch as he asked the employee who had thrown the bird into claimant's face why he had done it. Further, it is uncontradicted that claimant then went to see the main superintendent who lived and had his office on the Loyalsock Game Farm. On finding that he was not at his office-residence, claimant reported the incident to his wife and said she was going home because she could not stop the bleeding.
Thereafter, claimant left work and did not report back or further notify her employer until July 16, 1976, three days later. Claimant had consulted a physician who advised her not to return to work for a week. When she presented an excuse slip from her physician to her supervisor, she was told her job was no longer available.*fn1
The record further reveals that there was a misunderstanding between the employer and the claimant
[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 228]
as to the events subsequent to the pheasant-throwing incident. Claimant testified she did not contact her supervisor on July 14th or 15th to report the reason for her absence because he was aware of the circumstances and therefore she did not believe that her job was in jeopardy. Her supervisor testified he assumed claimant's failure to report meant that the incident ...