Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Douglas Randall, No. B-138108.
Michael P. McIntyre, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Joseph F. Leeson, for respondents.
Richard F. Boyer, for intervenor.
Judges Rogers, Blatt and DiSalle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge DiSalle.
[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 154]
This case is before us upon a petition for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which disallowed the appeal of Douglas Randall (Claimant) from a referee's decision denying him unemployment compensation benefits. The referee determined that the Claimant was ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the
[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 155]
Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802 (b)(1), for voluntarily terminating his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
Claimant had been employed by the O.K.I. Supply Co. (Employer) when he suffered a serious injury to his back in September of 1975. Claimant was hospitalized on several occasions and underwent an operation on his back. Claimant received workmen's compensation benefits during the period from the occurrence of his injury until he returned to work on April 16, 1976. Upon Claimant's return to work, his physician limited his lifting to fifty pounds. The Employer honored this medical restriction and tailored a job for Claimant.
Claimant worked for several days, and then informed his supervisor and the Employer's general manager that he could not continue performing his job, even with the fifty pound restriction, because of the pain he was suffering. The Employer told the Claimant that, since there was no other work available, he should go home. The Employer indicated to the Claimant that he would be kept on workmen's compensation in the interim. The Employer also indicated that if Claimant would obtain another medical opinion, the Employer would attempt to tailor another job for him. The Claimant left the Employer's premises on April 20, 1976. Several weeks later, his workmen's compensation benefits were terminated.
The Claimant then applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) denied Claimant benefits. Subsequent appeals by Claimant to a referee and to the Board resulted in an affirmance of the referee's determination that the Claimant had ...