Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Mary L. Lynch, No. B-139695.
Shelley W. Elovitz, with him Watzman, DeAngelis & Elovitz, for appellant.
George M. Cheever, with him Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchison, for appellee.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 35 Pa. Commw. Page 160]
Mary L. Lynch (claimant) has taken this appeal from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) disallowing a further appeal from a referee's denial of benefits. The referee's decision was based on her failure, without good cause, to accept suitable work under Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(a). We affirm.
Prior to April 4, 1976, claimant had worked for 4 years and 9 months for Suburban General Hospital as a registered nurse. On that date, the nursery for newborn infants in which claimant had worked was closed, and she was laid off. During her 34 years as a professional nurse, she had always worked on the nursery staff, although she had worked as a medical/surgical nurse as a student. By letter dated June 4, 1976, Suburban General offered her a position as a registered nurse and requested her to contact the director of nursing. The hours and rate of pay were apparently the same as in her former position. Claimant never responded to this letter.
When the Bureau of Employment Security denied her claim for benefits, claimant appealed, and a hearing
[ 35 Pa. Commw. Page 161]
was held before a referee. Ruth M. Kelley, Director of Nursing, testified that she talked with claimant at the beginning of April and informed her that Suburban General would retrain her for medical/surgical nursing. Nurse Kelley indicated that claimant had the background for such work and that she was capable of handling it. According to Nurse Kelley, claimant's response was that she did not want to go into medical/surgical nursing and that she thought she would take a couple of months off and try to find a job elsewhere in nursery work. Claimant testified at the hearing that she did not respond to the offer in June because she knew that it could not involve the care of newborn babies and because she did not feel capable of attending to patients on a medical/surgical floor, considering the new medicines and treatments in current use.
When the referee denied benefits and the Board disallowed a further appeal, claimant brought this appeal.
Our examination of claimant's eligibility under Section 402(a) must include the separate considerations of (1) whether the offered work was suitable and (2) whether her failure to accept such work was without good cause. See Lattanzio v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 461 Pa. 392, 336 A.2d 595 (1975); Unemployment ...