Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Earle T. Bittner, No. B-202230.
Robert L. Walsh, Apfelbaum and Walsh, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail, Doyle and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three.
This is an appeal by Earle T. Bittner (Claimant) from a decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's denial of benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1 We affirm.
Claimant was employed by the Northumberland County Employment and Training Agency as an administrative assistant for a period of almost five years. In April of 1981, Claimant was hospitalized because of a heart attack but returned to work in June of that year. On June 24, 1981, Claimant submitted a letter of resignation citing his personal health, dissatisfaction with policy and possible layoffs due to lack of funding as his reasons for terminating his employment.
A claimant voluntarily terminating his employment bears the burden to show cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Dickhoff v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 452, 449 A.2d 807 (1982). To establish health as a compelling and necessitous cause for terminating one's employment*fn2 a claimant must: 1) offer competent evidence that at the time of his termination adequate health reasons existed to justify termination and 2) inform the employer of the health problem. Dornblum v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 77 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 547, 466 A.2d 747 (1983).*fn3 Our careful review of the record in the case at bar reveals no competent evidence establishing that at the time of his termination the Claimant
had adequate health reasons to justify his termination;*fn4 nor was there evidence that his employer was informed that his medical condition made it impossible to perform his duties without risk to his health.*fn5 The failure to satisfy either of these conditions constitutes failure to sustain his burden of proof. Ruckstuhl v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 302, 426 A.2d 719 (1981).
Accordingly, we affirm.*fn6