Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Judith K. Danenberg, No. B-252685.
Robert M. Danenberg, for petitioner.
Patricia Krise Bilzi, Assistant Counsel, with her, Clifford F. Blaze, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail and Barry, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 110 Pa. Commw. Page 327]
Judith K. Danenberg (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law,*fn1 43 P.S. § 802(b) (voluntary quit without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature). We affirm.
On January 30, 1986, Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment as a domestic relations officer with the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in order to relocate with her spouse to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Claimant's husband, an attorney, had been employed temporarily as a law clerk with a Pittsburgh law firm following his graduation from law school in June, 1985. When the position expired in December, 1985, and being unable to find a job as an attorney in Pittsburgh, Claimant's husband accepted a position with a law firm in Wilkes-Barre, which the referee found to be approximately three hundred miles away.
The Office of Employment Security (OES) disapproved Claimant's application for unemployment compensation
[ 110 Pa. Commw. Page 328]
benefits based on its finding that Claimant left her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. The referee reversed the OES determination concluding that Claimant did show cause of a necessitous and compelling nature and so was eligible for benefits under Section 402(b). This decision was reversed by the Board, and Claimant now appeals the Board's denial of benefits to our Court.
On appeal, Claimant argues that the Board erroneously concluded that her termination was not with cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. We note that the issue of whether a claimant has left work for such cause is a question of law, subject to our review. Judd v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 91 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 372, 496 A.2d 1377 (1985). Our review of the Board's order, however, is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704.*fn2
When a claimant voluntarily terminates employment to follow a spouse to a new location, the following spouse must show 1) an economic hardship in maintaining two residences or that the move has resulted in an insurmountable commuting problem; and 2) that the claimant's termination is the direct result of the other spouse's relocation. Wheeler v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 69 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 201, 450 ...