Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Arlene A. Miller, No. B-197075.
William C. Knapp, for petitioner.
Francine Ostrovsky, Associate Counsel, with her Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 438]
Arlene A. Miller (claimant) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's decision to deny her
[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 439]
benefits on the basis that she voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.*fn1
The claimant was employed as Director of Nursing by the South Hills Convalescent Home (South Hills) until she submitted two written notices of resignation each of which stated that she was leaving due to dissatisfaction with the way the convalescent home was being operated.*fn2 Specifically, she alleged that South Hills failed to maintain proper levels of care for the patients, that such alleged failure was contrary to state and federal regulations, that in her capacity as Director of Nursing she was charged with the duty of complying with such regulations, and that her employer had placed her, as a professional, in a position where she would have to abrogate her professional responsibility.
It is clear that the claimant bears the burden of establishing that she terminated her employment for cause of a necessitous and compelling reason. Cooper v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 614, 450 A.2d 247 (1982). And where, as here, the party with the burden of proof has not prevailed below, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether or not the findings were made in capricious disregard of evidence in the record or if an error of law was committed. Id.
We find that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof. Our review of the record indicates that she failed to establish that South Hills' staffing policies with which she was dissatisfied were criminal or unlawful
[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 440]
activities.*fn3 Her unsubstantiated beliefs standing alone will not suffice.*fn4 Similarly, her contention that she was forced by South Hills to breach her professional responsibilities was not supported by evidence as to any statute, ...