Opinion
No. 109 C.D. 2012
08-14-2012
Samora Harper-Eagle, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER
Samora Harper-Eagle (Claimant) petitions for review of an Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed an Unemployment Compensation Referee's (Referee) decision finding Claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). On appeal, Claimant argues that two of the Board's findings are not supported by substantial record evidence. Additionally, Claimant argues that the Board erred as a matter of law in determining that she voluntarily quit her employment without a necessitous and compelling reason. For the following reasons, we affirm the Board's Order.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b). Section 402(b) provides that a claimant is ineligible for benefits for any week in which her unemployment was due to her voluntarily quitting without a necessitous and compelling reason.
Fairmount Behavioral Health Systems (Employer) employed Claimant as a registered nurse from November 6, 2007, through June 25, 2011. Claimant applied for UC benefits. On July 20, 2011, the Scranton UC Service Center (Service Center) determined that Claimant was eligible for UC benefits pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Law. Employer filed a timely appeal and a hearing was conducted before the Referee on August 29, 2011. Claimant did not appear at this hearing. On August 31, 2011, the Referee issued an order reversing the Service Center's determination. Claimant appealed to the Board, alleging that she did not receive notice of the August 29, 2011 hearing until August 31, 2011. Claimant also challenged the Referee's decision that she was ineligible for UC benefits. On October 19, 2011, the Board remanded this matter for an additional hearing, which was held on November 28, 2011. (Employer Questionnaire, R.R. at 13A; Claim Record, R.R. at 3A; Notice of Determination at 1, R.R. at 18A; Referee Decision/Order at 2, R.R. at 48A; Petition for Appeal at 4-5, R.R. at 55A-56A; Board Hearing Order, R.R. at 129A.)
At the remand hearing, Claimant testified on her own behalf, presented two witnesses, and one witness testified on behalf of Employer. Upon review of the evidence presented at the initial August 29, 2011 hearing and the November 28, 2011 remand hearing, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. Fairmount Behavioral Health Systems last employed the claimant as a full-time registered nurse from November 6, 2007, through June 25, 2011, at $30.70 per hour.(Board Decision, Findings of Fact (FOF) ¶¶ 1-8.) Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Board concluded that Claimant's health problems did not constitute a necessitous and compelling reason to quit her employment. (Board Decision at 2- 3.) The Board determined that Claimant's failure to notify Employer that her previous health issues continued near the time she quit denied Employer the opportunity to accommodate Claimant by transferring her to a different shift. (Board Decision at 3.) Accordingly, the Board denied Claimant UC benefits pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Law. Claimant now petitions this Court for review of the Board's Order.
2. The claimant regularly attempted to seek alternative shifts because working after a particular coworker was stressful, but she was denied because of competition from other coworkers.
3. Beginning February 2011, the claimant's health declined, resulting in hospitalization for [a] suspected stroke, a possible multiple sclerosis diagnosis, and ongoing weakness of her right side.
4. Because of the physically strenuous nature of the claimant's work, the employer allowed her to return to work only when she could show no restrictions, including using a cane.
5. The claimant returned from a medical leave of absence on April 1, 2011, without restriction.
6. The claimant never requested an accommodation because she believed that it would be denied.
7. On June 15, 2011, the claimant submitted to the employer a letter of resignation, effective June 25, 2011, without giving a reason.
8. The claimant quit because of health problems allegedly caused by work-related stress.
In an appeal of a decision denying UC benefits, this Court's review "is limited to determining whether its findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record, whether an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated." Comitalo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 737 A.2d 342, 344 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).
On appeal to this Court, Claimant argues that two of the Board's findings are not supported by substantial record evidence. She disputes FOF 6, which states that she "never requested an accommodation because she believed that it would be denied." (FOF ¶ 6.) She also disputes FOF 7, which states that she submitted a letter of resignation without stating a reason to Employer. (FOF ¶ 7.) Claimant also argues that the Board erred as a matter of law in determining that she lacked a necessitous and compelling reason to quit her employment.
It is well settled that "the Board is the ultimate factfinder and is empowered to make credibility determinations." Baldwin-Whitehall School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 848 A.2d 1021, 1023 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). In reviewing the Board's findings of fact, this Court only inquires as to whether the findings are supported by substantial record evidence. Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363, 368 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Evidence is deemed substantial if a reasonable mind might consider it as adequate to support a conclusion. Id.
We first address Claimant's argument that FOF 6 and 7 are not supported by substantial record evidence. With respect to FOF 6, Claimant contends that she did request an accommodation from Employer. Claimant states that she repeatedly requested unit transfers and shift changes, including after she returned from medical leave, to move away from another nurse whose incompetence was causing her stress. Claimant asserts that it was only after her requests were denied that she did not ask for any further accommodations. Claimant also states that she was denied an accommodation when, prior to her return from medical leave, Employer informed her that she could not use a cane, to assist her in getting from her car into the building, if she wished to return to work.
Here, Claimant's own testimony indicates that her unit transfer and shift change requests were based solely on her coworker's inadequacies, not her medical conditions. (Board Decision at 2-3; Remand Hr'g Tr. at 13, R.R. at 222A.) As found by the Board, Claimant quit her employment "because of health problems allegedly caused by work-related stress." (FOF ¶ 8.) Thus, the issue here is whether Claimant requested accommodations based on her medical problems rather than on her coworker's incompetency. On April 1, 2011, Claimant returned to unrestricted work from her medical leave because Claimant, aware that she could not return to work with restrictions, purposely secured an inaccurate note from her doctor releasing her to return to work. (FOF ¶ 5; Board Decision at 2; Remand Hr'g Tr. at 15, R.R. at 224A; Letter from Joseph S. Lubeck, D.O. to Employer, (March 21, 2011), R.R. at 44A.) Despite being cleared to return to unrestricted work, Claimant requested permission from Employer to use a cane in Employer's parking lot. (Remand Hr'g Tr. at 10, R.R. at 219A.) Claimant testified that, when Employer refused her request, she did not "ask for anything else because I felt that it was made plain that no accommodation was going to be made." (Remand Hr'g Tr. at 11, R.R. at 220A.). Therefore, FOF 6 relates to whether Claimant made a request to accommodate her health problems. Accordingly, substantial record evidence supports the Board's finding that Claimant "never requested an accommodation because she believed it would be denied." (FOF ¶ 6.)
Claimant also argues that the Board's FOF 7, that she tendered her letter of resignation on June 15, 2011, without stating a reason, is unsupported by substantial record evidence. We initially note that Claimant's letter of resignation lacks any explanation on its face. (Resignation Letter, R.R. at 43A.) Claimant testified that she told Employer that she "cannot follow [her coworker] one more day" immediately before she quit on June 15, 2011. (Remand Hr'g Tr. at 14, R.R. at 223A.) However, this statement does not equate to Claimant communicating her reason for quitting her employment as it does not reference Claimant's medical conditions. Therefore, we find that substantial record evidence supports the Board's finding that Claimant tenured her letter of resignation without giving a reason.
Next, Claimant argues that the Board erred as a matter of law in determining that she voluntarily quit her employment without a necessitous and compelling reason. To establish a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting employment, a claimant bears the burden of proving "that [s]he acted with ordinary common sense in quitting [her] job, that [s]he made a reasonable effort to preserve [her] employment and that [s]he had no other real choice than to leave [her] employment." Malloy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 523 A.2d 834, 836 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). "Whether a claimant had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for leaving work is a question of law subject to this Court's review." Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD PC. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 995 A.2d 1286, 1289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Where a medical problem prevents a claimant from performing her job functions, the claimant must show that: 1) a legitimate medical condition prevented her from performing her regularly assigned tasks; 2) she communicated this medical condition to her employer; and 3) she was available to perform work suitable for her medical condition. Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 700 A.2d 600, 603 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). An employee's complaints to an employer regarding a coworker do not inform the employer of her health problems unless she discusses these problems. Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD PC., 995 A.2d at 1289-90. The only disputed issue here is whether Claimant communicated her health problems to Employer after she returned from her medical leave.
Undisputedly, Employer knew Claimant suffered adverse medical conditions prior to her medical leave. (Board Decision at 2.) --------
Claimant contends that her repeated requests for unit transfers and shift changes communicated her medical problems to Employer. Claimant further argues that her complaints to coworkers and management informed Employer that she suffered from adverse medical conditions. However, the Board determined that Claimant never indicated to Employer that her requests for transfers and shift changes were health-related. (Board Decision at 3.) This determination is supported by Claimant's testimony indicating that her complaints to Employer regarding her coworker concerned the coworker's performance rather than his effect on her health. (Remand Hr'g Tr. at 11, 14, R.R. at 220A, 223A.) Because Claimant did not communicate her medical problems to Employer via her shift change requests, complaints, or other means, we conclude that the Board did not err by finding that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Law.
For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the Order of the Board.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge ORDER
NOW, August 14, 2012, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge