Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Karen L. G. Archambo, No. B-175515.
Alan I. Rosenberg, Hennessy & Rosenberg, for petitioner.
Karen Durkin, Assistant Attorney General, with her Elsa D. Newman-Silverstein, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Craig and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 207]
In this unemployment compensation appeal, the claimant*fn1 questions a denial of compensation by the board,*fn2 which reversed a referee's decision and found the claimant, a grinder and sandblaster, ineligible for compensation on the basis of the voluntary quit provision of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn3 We affirm.
On May 18, 1979, the claimant admittedly resigned voluntarily from her position with the employer.*fn4 Therefore the sole issue for this court to decide is whether the board capriciously disregarded competent evidence by concluding that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proving that her resignation was precipitated by cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.*fn5
After reviewing the record, we cannot find that the board capriciously disregarded competent evidence.
The claimant contends that medical difficulties emanating from her employment forced her to resign.
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 208]
Although the claimant introduced a letter from her physician which stated that she was suffering from extreme anxiety neurosis probably related to stress and tension from her work, the record reveals that the claimant was not advised by a physician to terminate her employment. Moreover, the letter from claimant's doctor was dated a month after she had quit, and is of little evidentiary value because it does not adequately set forth the status of the claimant's health as it existed when she terminated her employment. See Eckenrod v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 166, 325 A.2d 320 (1974).
With respect to claimant's alternate contention, that exposure to the chemical Xylene caused the job to be hazardous, the board, in exercising its power to judge credibility, clearly ...