Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Toni R. Coyle, No. B-172570.
Mark S. Sedley, for petitioner.
Steven R. Marcuse, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 56 Pa. Commw. Page 171]
This is an appeal by Toni R. Coyle (Claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation
[ 56 Pa. Commw. Page 172]
Board of Review (Board) denying unemployment compensation benefits. The Board affirmed the referee's determination that the Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a "necessitous and compelling nature" and was therefore ineligible for benefits under § 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1 We agree.
Claimant was employed by the United States Post Office (Employer) as a postal clerk from November 1975 until December 1978. During that time she had two approved leaves of absence for medical reasons. Upon returning to work on November 24, 1978, after the second leave of absence, Claimant made a written request for a transfer to lighter work. Claimant terminated her employment on December 5, 1978 alleging that her work was having an adverse effect on her health. She applied for benefits which were denied by the Bureau (now Office) of Employment Security (Office). Claimant appealed. After a hearing, the referee affirmed the Office's determination. Claimant then appealed to the Board but was again denied benefits.
The issue before us is whether the Claimant presented substantial competent evidence that adequate health reasons existed to justify her voluntary termination of her job.
It is well settled that the burden to prove necessitous and compelling circumstances is on the Claimant. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
[ 56 Pa. Commw. Page 173474]
Pa. 351, 378 A.2d 829 (1977). When the burden of proof is on the party who did not prevail below, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the Board's findings of fact can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Houff Transfer, Inc. v. Unemployment ...