Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RICHARD P. STACY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/13/79)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: June 13, 1979.

RICHARD P. STACY, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT

Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Richard P. Stacy, No. B-160488.

COUNSEL

Edward Van Stevenson, Jr., for appellant.

GuruJodha Singh Khalsa, Assistant Attorney General, with him Reese F. Couch, Assistant Attorney General, and J. Justin Blewitt, Acting Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Blatt, DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge DiSalle.

Author: Disalle

[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 356]

Richard P. Stacy (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision denying him benefits pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(b)(1).

There is no question in this case but that Claimant voluntarily terminated his employment. Claimant takes the position, however, that the Board erred in concluding that he did not have necessitous and compelling reasons for leaving. He avers that, in the two months that he worked as an administrative assistant for One Grandview Restaurant, he was verbally abused and physically and verbally threatened. His employer categorically denied these allegations. Even Claimant's witness testified that he was not aware of any specific threats directed towards Claimant. The factfinder, whose duty it is to resolve conflicts in the testimony, obviously believed the employer. Since there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that Claimant was not verbally abused or threatened, we are unable to conclude that the Board erred.

Claimant also alleges that the employer's conduct necessitated treatment by a physician for acute anxiety.

[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 357]

Be that as it may, the testimony clearly establishes that he did not adequately apprise his employer of his health problems or request lighter or more suitable work prior to his resignation. Having failed to comply with these requirements, it is clear that Claimant voluntarily quit his job without necessitous and compelling cause. Benefits were properly denied.

Order

And Now, this 13th day of June, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated June 21, 1978, denying benefits to Richard P. Stacy, is hereby affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.

19790613

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.