Appeals from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in cases of In Re: Claim of Lawrence D. Shields, Nos. B-145692, B-145693 and B-145694.
James D. Belliveau, with him Michael A. Nemec and William Fries, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 39 Pa. Commw. Page 502]
The appellant, Lawrence D. Shields, was denied unemployment compensation benefits initially by the Bureau of Employment Security and by the referee and on appeal by the Unemployment Compensation Appeal Board because (1) the termination of his employment was caused by his own wilful misconduct, (2) he was not able and available for work, and (3) he failed to comply with the absence reporting requirements. The findings of fact which are supported by substantial evidence indicate that the appellant was discharged as the result of his numerous absences due to alcoholism, that he was later hospitalized for treatment of his alcoholism and that he subsequently failed to report to the employment office as required. These findings as a matter of law support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Mooney v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 404, 395 A.2d 675 (1978); Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Sanchez, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 353, 346 A.2d 390 (1975);
[ 39 Pa. Commw. Page 503]
Janick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 441, 383 A.2d 973 (1978). The Board's denial of benefits must therefore be affirmed.
And Now, this 2nd day of January, 1979, the orders of the Unemployment Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matters are hereby affirmed.