# Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · July 14, 2010 · 1 A.3d 965

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774198

## Case

- **Full name:** PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY, Petitioner v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 14, 2010
- **Citations:** 1 A.3d 965; 2010 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 348; 2010 WL 2757325
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Leadbetter
- **Judges:** Leadbetter, Simpson, McCullough
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774198

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no willful misconduct following the claimant’s discharge for falling asleep on the job, where the claimant previously notified the employer that her medical conditions caused drowsiness and she requested additional work so that she would not fall asleep, but the employ…
- holding that a claimant was not required to present medical evidence to establish illness as good cause where the broader standard “more effectively comports with this Court’s view that the Unemployment Compensation Law must be liberally and broadly construed.”

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION BY
President Judge LEADBETTER.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. However, when a claimant asserts that she has unintentionally violated a work rule because of a medical condition, I believe that competent evidence of that condition is needed whether the case is analyzed under the “good cause” standard or the “willfulness” standard, so we must address the competency of the claimant’s evidence in either event.
Moreover, I believe that, ordinarily, corroborative medical evidence, either documentary or testimonial, should be required, or at least some corroborating circumstances. Thus, I would revisit those prior published opinions which suggest, in dicta, 1 that the claimant’s testimony alone is sufficient as a matter of law. I would not do so here, however, for two reasons. Arguably, medical condition or not, anyone left alone in a room for hours on end late at night with nothing to do might well fall asleep unintentionally. Second, because of this claimant’s significant prior medical history and pre-termination complaints to employer, I would find her credited testimony to be sufficient.
. I note that even in those cases discussed by the majority, such as Goettler v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 96 Pa.Cmwlth. 632 , 508 A.2d 630 (1986), in which we have said either the claimant's testimony or documentary evidence was sufficient, there was some corroborating documentation in addition to the claimant's testimony. See also, Judd v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 91 Pa. Cmwlth. 372, 496 A.2d 1377 (1985).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774198. Public record. Not legal advice.