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.

THELMA T. ROLLAND v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/13/86)

decided: June 13, 1986.

THELMA T. ROLLAND, 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 Thelma T. Rolland, No. B-233707.

COUNSEL

Penn B. Glazier, for petitioner.

Donna M. Stanek, Associate Counsel, with her, Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, and Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 98 Pa. Commw. Page 164]

Thelma T. Rolland (claimant) filed a petition for review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed a referee's decision

[ 98 Pa. Commw. Page 165]

    denying her benefits on the ground that she had voluntarily left her work without a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(b). We reverse and remand.

The claimant worked as a controller for Berger and Company Inc., in Allentown, Pennsylvania. She began working for Berger and Company, Inc. in 1954 and after a break of fourteen years she returned to her position. Her final stint lasted seven years.

On April 30, 1984 she left her work and moved to Lancaster to live with her husband, who suffered from heart disease and diabetes, in a life care facility. They entered the life care facility because the husband was no longer physically able to mow the lawn and otherwise maintain the home. They selected the Lancaster facility for economic reasons. The available life care facility in the Allentown area would have charged $1,838 a month and provided only one meal a day; the Lancaster facility charged $875.00 a month and provided two meals a day.

The referee denied benefits reasoning that although the claimant "had excellent good personal reasons for leaving her work to accompany her husband to the Lancaster Area . . . , that reason is not necessitous and compelling within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law." The Board affirmed; we reverse.

The issue of whether a claimant has left her work for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature is one of law and subject to our review. Judd v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 91 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 372, 496 A.2d 1377 (1985).

Where a claimant quits a job to follow a spouse to a new location, the following spouse must show not only that ...


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.