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 CARROLL v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/14/82)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: September 14, 1982.

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

Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Richard L. Carroll, No. B-197475.

COUNSEL

Daniel L. Carn, Carn & Vaughn, for petitioner.

Steven J. Neary, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 63]

Richard Carroll (Claimant) brings this appeal from a determination of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied Claimant unemployment compensation benefits based on a determination that Claimant had voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Section 402(b) 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).

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 64]

Claimant's primary contention is that he justifiably terminated his employment for reasons of health.*fn1 In order to sustain a determination of cause of a necessitous and compelling nature justifying a voluntary termination based upon health, a claimant must (1) introduce competent testimony that at the time of termination adequate health reasons existed to justify termination, (2) inform the employer of the health problems, and (3) specifically request the employer to transfer him to a more suitable position. Deiss v. Page 64} Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 475 Pa. 547, 381 A.2d 132 (1977). The Board here found that the Claimant failed to meet his burden*fn2 of proving either the first or third requirements of Deiss.

We have carefully examined the record in this case and have failed to find any corroborating medical evidence, either prior to or after termination, which would support Claimant's contention that at the time of termination his health precluded him from performing his assigned duties. See Coyle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 56 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 170, 174, 424 A.2d 588, 590 (1981). The Claimant terminated his employment in August of 1980. He admits that he provided his employer with no evidence prior to termination from his physicians concerning his physical health. The medical evidence offered at the referee's hearing in the form of written reports from our four physicians falls short of meeting the test we first enunciated in Elshinnawy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 597, 317 A.2d 332 (1974) that physicians' statements obtained after the termination of employment are of little evidentiary value unless the statements adequately explain and support the health reasons as they existed on the date of termination. In the instant case none of the reports admitted into evidence refer in any manner to Claimant's condition at the time of termination.*fn3 Thus, Claimant has failed to meet the first condition of Deiss and his claim for benefits on medical grounds must fail.*fn4

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 65]

We have examined Claimant's other two contentions and find them to be without merit.*fn5 We shall therefore affirm the order of the Board.

Order

The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-197475, dated July 21, 1981, is hereby affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.


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.