Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

FRANKFORD HOSPITAL v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/11/82)

decided: May 11, 1982.

FRANKFORD HOSPITAL, 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 Debra Steinberg, No. B-188227.

COUNSEL

Joanne E. Kleiner, with her John P. Quinn, Steinberg, Greenstein, Gorelick & Price, for petitioner.

Charles Hasson, Associate Counsel, with him Paul A. Sneed, Associate Counsel, and Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig. This decision was reached prior to the resignation of Judge Mencer.

Author: Craig

[ 66 Pa. Commw. Page 452]

In this unemployment compensation appeal, the Frankford Hospital questions an allowance of benefits by the board, affirming a referee's determination that the claimant*fn1 was eligible for benefits on the basis

[ 66 Pa. Commw. Page 453]

    that her voluntary quit was justified by a "cause" which was "necessitous and compelling," according to the terms of Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn2

The referee found that the claimant had worked for the Frankford Hospital-Torresdale Division as a Blood Bank Supervisor for about three years. After a two-day absence from her job, the claimant's supervisor informed her that her pattern of absences and her job performance were unsatisfactory, advising the claimant that she would be demoted, which would result in a reduction in pay. The claimant submitted her resignation on the next regularly scheduled workday, citing, as the reason for resignation, disatisfaction with the demotion which she had received.

In his discussion, the referee "specifically [found] the demotion not warranted," based upon Finding of Fact No. 2 as to absences:

(2) Claimant was absent from her job on May 7, 1980 and May 8, 1980, due to illness and properly reported such absences as to the reason therefor.*fn3

Attentive to our limited scope of review,*fn4 we find that the claimant's testimony, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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