Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Mary Ellison, No. B-182851.
Gary M. Rose, for petitioner.
Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, with him Richard C. Lengler, Law Student-Intern, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 452]
Claimant appeals to this Court to reverse a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed a referee's determination to deny benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1), for voluntarily terminating claimant's employment without necessitous and compelling reasons. We affirm.
Claimant had worked for sixteen years as a beautician at the Philadelphia State Hospital, when she terminated the employment relationship, alleging that the work was causing her to suffer from high blood pressure and a nervous condition. Her physical problems were caused, claimant contends, by the employer's requirement that the door to the room where she worked be locked when she was attending to patients. The locks to which claimant objected had been installed approximately two years before she left her job.
The referee found that claimant was not under the care of a physician at the time of her termination, nor was she advised by a doctor to sever the employment relationship. She did not request a leave of absence
[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 453]
or a transfer before leaving. These findings were affirmed by the Board.
Upon appeal to this Court, claimant raises two issues: (1) whether the Board erred in finding her ineligible, since her working conditions provided necessitous and compelling reason to leave, and (2) whether the Board erred in finding that claimant was not able and available for work, in light of the referee's failure to first explain to her what the words "able," "available," and "work" meant.
In the absence of fraud or its equivalent, our scope of review is limited to resolutions of
[Q]uestions of law and a determination of whether the findings of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review are supported by the evidence, leaving to the Board questions of credibility and weight of the evidence, and giving to the prevailing party the benefit of any ...