Opinion

Emmitt v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

  • 93 Pa. Commw. 71
  • 500 A.2d 510
  • 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1385
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Nov 18, 1985
Status
Published
Author
Kalish
On the bench
Crumlish, Kalish, Rogers
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 56.4%

The opinion

Opinion by

Senior Judge Kalish,

We affirm the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee’s decision which denied benefits to Frederick Emmitt on the ground that he had voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.

Emmitt worked for the Hatfield Packing Company for three days as a casing puller on the kill floor where the butchered pigs were cut up for processing. The Board found that Emmitt voluntarily terminated his employment because he believed that the work was making him nauseous and unable to consume food. However, the Board went on to decide that Emmitt had not presented “adequate competent evidence from which it could be determined that he had a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily quitting his employment.” Emmitt contends that the Board erred in finding his testimony inadequate to meet his burden of proof.

Where a claimant alleges that health ■ problems justified his voluntary termination, he must offer competent evidence to meet his burden of proof. Deiss v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 475 Pa. 547 , 381 A.2d 132 (1977). While this standard does not require a claimant to provide medical testimony to meet his burden of proof, “there may appear before the Court cases where the applicant’s *73 testimony and supporting documents are inadequate.” Steffy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 367, 372 , 453 A.2d 591, 594 (1982).

Here the Board’s findings of fact and discussion show that the Board considered Emmitt’s testimony, but found it inadequate to meet his burden of proof. The Board is the ultimate fact finder and the sole arbiter on the issue of credibility and evidentiary weight, so that even uncontradicted testimony may be disregarded. Carriers Terminal Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 586 , 449 A.2d 873 (1982).

The Board did not arbitrarily or capriciously disregard the evidence, therefore we affirm the denial of benefits.

Order

The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in Decision No. B-233492, dated August 14,1984, is affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.