Opinion
No. 1188 C.D. 2011
07-11-2012
Joyce A. Mokros, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH
This case was assigned to the opinion writer on or before January 6, 2012, when President Judge Leadbetter completed her term as President Judge.
Joyce A. Mokros (Claimant) petitions pro se for review of the May 24, 2011, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the decision of a referee denying Claimant benefits pursuant to section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b), which provides that a claimant is ineligible for unemployment compensation where her unemployment is due to her voluntarily leaving employment without demonstrating cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
Claimant worked as a full-time night charge nurse for Homestead Village (Employer) from August 18, 2008, to August 31, 2010. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) In April 2009, Claimant suffered a work-related injury to her back and filed a workers' compensation claim against Employer; Claimant also requested limited duty work, which Employer provided. (Finding of Fact No. 5.) On September 2, 2010, Claimant entered into an agreement with Employer to settle her workers' compensation claim for $12,645.40. In consideration for the settlement agreement, Claimant, as advised by her attorney, signed a prepared resignation letter which immediately terminated her employment. (Findings of Fact Nos. 6-7.)
The local service center approved Claimant's application for benefits, concluding that Claimant had necessitous and compelling cause to voluntarily resign from her employment. Employer appealed, and a referee conducted a hearing at which Claimant and Laura Tallarico, Employer's Human Resources Director, testified. Claimant stated that she signed the resignation letter in order to secure a workers' compensation settlement with Employer. Claimant explained that, as a result of her work-related injury, she had accumulated over $10,000.00 in unpaid medical bills, and she testified that her purpose in entering the settlement agreement and signing the resignation letter was to secure payment for those bills.
Claimant stated that Employer's insurance had stopped making payments for her medical care after she was treated by a pain management group that was not included on Employer's panel of approved doctors.
Following the hearing, the referee reversed the decision of the local service center, concluding that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under section 402(b) of the Law because she voluntarily quit her employment in order to obtain a settlement agreement with Employer. On further appeal, the Board affirmed and adopted the referee's decision.
On appeal to this Court, Claimant argues that the Board erred in concluding that she did not demonstrate a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily resigning from her employment. Claimant contends that because she was required to resign in order to settle her workers' compensation claim, she demonstrated good cause for voluntarily leaving her employment. We disagree.
Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704. --------
In order to be eligible for benefits under section 402(b) of the Law, a claimant who voluntarily leaves her employment bears the burden of demonstrating that real and substantial pressure to terminate her employment existed that would compel a reasonable person under like circumstances to act in the same manner. Procito v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 945 A.2d 261, 264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). The claimant must also establish that she acted with ordinary common sense and made a reasonable effort to preserve her employment. Petrill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 883 A.2d 714, 716 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). Whether a claimant has demonstrated necessitous and compelling cause is a question of law subject to our review. Willet v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 429 A.2d 1282, 1283-84 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
In our recent decision of Lee v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 33 A.3d 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), we concluded that a desire to settle a workers' compensation claim does not constitute necessitous and compelling cause to terminate employment. In Lee, the claimant entered into an agreement with her employer to settle her workers' compensation claim. In consideration for the settlement, the claimant agreed to resign from her position. The local job center granted the claimant's application for benefits and, after a hearing, a referee affirmed the local job center's determination. On further appeal, however, the Board reversed, concluding that the claimant was ineligible for benefits under section 402(b) of the Law because she voluntarily terminated her employment without necessitous and compelling cause. We affirmed the decision of the Board, specifically holding that the claimant's decision to resign in order to settle a workers' compensation claim did not demonstrate the required necessitous and compelling cause required to receive benefits under the Law.
We explained in Lee that the claimant was not forced by the employer to sign the settlement agreement and therefore her resignation was voluntary. In addition, we concluded that because the claimant could have seen her workers' compensation claim to its conclusion, she did not have necessitous and compelling cause to quit. Here, as in Lee, Claimant agreed to resign from her employment position in order to settle a legal dispute. Claimant had the option of refusing to resign and to continue pursuing her workers' compensation claim, but she voluntarily chose to terminate her employment in order to reach a settlement agreement with Employer. We conclude that the Board correctly determined that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits under section 402(b) of the Law because she did not demonstrate that she voluntarily terminated her employment for a necessitous and compelling reason.
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2012, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated May 24, 2011, is hereby affirmed.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge