decided: November 8, 1982.
HELEN DAVIS, PETITIONER
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 Helen Davis, No. B-193621.
James B. Cole, Stokes, Lurie & Tracy, for petitioner.
William J. Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Blatt and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 585]
Claimant Helen Davis appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 586]
a referee's decision which denied her benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
The claimant, last employed as a cleaner in Pittsburgh, quit her job and moved to Maryland, where she filed an interstate unemployment compensation claim. The board found that the claimant's husband was in poor health and that the claimant quit so that she and her husband could live with her son, where her husband would always have someone to look after him.
The board held that the claimant is ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Law*fn2 because she did not prove a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting her job.*fn3
The claimant testified that, approximately one month before she quit, her husband's condition began to get worse and she told her acting supervisor that she might have to leave work because of her husband's illness. The board candidly admits that there is no basis for its finding that "the claimant never discussed her personal problems with her supervisor."
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 587]
To be eligible for benefits the claimant was not necessarily required to ask for a leave of absence or to tell her employer when she could return to work. The rule in Deiss v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 475 Pa. 547, 381 A.2d 132 (1977) is addressed to injured claimants who could return to work with their employer in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Check v. Unemployment Compensation Page 587} Board of Review, 56 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 47, 423 A.2d 1140 (1981).
The board made no finding that claimant's husband's condition might improve so that the claimant could, at some reasonably foreseeable time, leave him unattended and return to work.*fn4 In fact, we find nothing in the record to support such a finding.*fn5
The claimant introduced uncontradicted medical evidence showing that her husband has a serious heart condition and the claimant's uncontradicted testimony was that her husband "can't be left alone." Although the board did find that "the claimant was frequently absent from work when she had to care for him," it made no finding on the key point of whether the claimant's husband needed constant attention.*fn6
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 588]
Because we decide that the board's conclusions are not supported by necessary findings, we remand this case to the board for additional proceedings.*fn7 Kostek v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 271, 392 A.2d 909 (1978). The board may, of course, remand to the referee for the taking of additional evidence and findings.
Now, November 8, 1982, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-193621, dated March 25, 1981, is hereby vacated and this case is remanded to the Board for action consistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.