From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 26, 2013
No. 1726 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Feb. 26, 2013)

Opinion

No. 1726 C.D. 2012

02-26-2013

Maretta Ann Robinson, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent


BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY

Maretta Ann Robinson (Claimant), pro se, petitions this Court for review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's (UCBR) August 15, 2012 order affirming the Referee's decision denying Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). Essentially, Claimant presents three issues for this Court's review: (1) whether the UCBR erred in concluding that Claimant did not have a necessitous and compelling reason to quit her job; (2) whether the Referee erred in not affording Claimant a full and fair hearing; and (3) whether the UCBR erred in denying Claimant's request for a remand hearing. We affirm.

Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b).

Claimant worked as a full-time income maintenance case worker for the Department of Public Welfare (Employer) beginning October 15, 2007. Claimant gave Employer her two-week notice of resignation effective March 30, 2012. Claimant initiated retirement proceedings at the same time. On April 1, 2012, Claimant applied for UC benefits. On May 1, 2012, the Duquesne UC Service Center denied Claimant UC benefits pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Law. Claimant appealed, and a Referee held a hearing. On May 25, 2012, the Referee affirmed the UC Service Center's determination. Claimant appealed to the UCBR. On August 15, 2012, the UCBR affirmed the Referee's decision. Claimant appealed to this Court.

Claimant testified before the Referee that she attempted to rescind her retirement on March 29, 2012. As noted by the UCBR, "Claimant cannot assert necessitous and compelling reasons for quitting while at the same time claiming that she did not actually quit." Reproduced Record, UCBR Decision at 3.

This Court's review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether errors of law were committed. Johnson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 869 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

Claimant argues that the UCBR erred in concluding she did not have a necessitous and compelling reason to quit her job. Specifically, Claimant contends that she had adequate health reasons at the time of her resignation to justify leaving her employment. We disagree.

Initially, we recognize:

An employee who claims to have left employment for a necessitous and compelling reason must prove that: (1) circumstances existed which produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment; (2) such circumstances would compel a reasonable person to act in the same manner; (3) the claimant acted with ordinary common sense; and, (4) the claimant made a reasonable effort to preserve her employment.
Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657, 660 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
To establish health problems as a compelling reason to quit, the claimant must (1) offer competent testimony that adequate health reasons existed to justify the voluntary termination, (2) have informed the employer of the health problems and (3) be available to work if reasonable accommodations can be made. Failure to meet any one of these conditions bars a claim for unemployment compensation. . . .
Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD PC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 995 A.2d 1286, 1290 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (citation omitted) (quoting Lee Hosp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 637 A.2d 695, 698 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).

Here, when asked by the Referee: "What was the basic reason for leaving?" Claimant responded: "I was burnt out." Reproduced Record (R.R), Notes of Testimony, May 24, 2012 (N.T.) at 3 (emphasis added). Later, the Referee asked Claimant: "What do you want to tell me, ma'am?" R.R., N.T. at 6. Claimant countered: "What do I want to tell you about what? . . ." R.R., N.T. at 6. The Referee replied: "The issue here is whether you voluntarily left employment for reasons of a necessitous and compelling nature." R.R., N.T. at 7. Claimant stated:

It was necessitous and compelling for me to leave because, like I said, I was burnt out. And I was starting to have physical symptoms from the stress, from dealing with the stress of that job and the stress of other things that were into play because I was trying to interview and apply for other positions, but I kept getting turned down even though I have a master's degree in Business Administration and I interview well. I applied for a lot of different positions and interviewed. Some positions, I was given back my whole entire application packet and told that I was not eligible, which I don't understand, like for the staff development specialist position. I applied for that position and the whole packet was sent back to me. It wasn't even considered and I didn't understand that. So it wasn't like I didn't try to get out of the case worker job via promotion or other jobs. I went on interviews in Beaver County to be a Case Worker there.
R.R., N.T. at 7. In addition, when asked by Employer's counsel if she provided Employer with medical documentation requiring her to quit prior to submitting her resignation letter, Claimant responded: "Not requiring me to quit . . . . No doctor is going to tell you that you need to quit your job." R.R., N.T. at 12. Finally, when Employer's Human Resource Analyst II, David Householder (Householder), was asked "[a]nd prior to her leaving, did the Claimant ever raise any issues that she's brought forth today in the hearing with regard to poor air quality, unsafe working conditions?" Householder answered: "Not that I am familiar with." R.R., N.T. at 15.

Claimant did not produce any evidence that adequate health reasons existed to justify her voluntary employment termination. Although Claimant testified that she has asthma and that Employer provided her leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to stay home when it flared up, she did not state that she had told Employer that the air quality was so bad that she could not work there. Nor did she report that she spoke with Employer regarding any of the issues she raised at the hearing. In fact, her specific reason for quitting was that she was "burnt out." R.R., N.T. at 3, 7.

Householder related that Claimant was given Sick, Parental and Family Care absence (SPF), which allowed Claimant intermittent leave to call out sick if she so needed.

"Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." City of Pittsburgh, Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 927 A.2d 675, 676 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). The record contains relevant evidence adequate to support the UCBR's conclusion that Claimant did not have a necessitous and compelling reason to quit her job.

Claimant next argues that the Referee erred in not affording her a full and fair hearing. Expressly, Claimant contends that the Referee did not allow her sufficient time to completely and accurately testify at the hearing. We disagree.

A review of the record shows that the Referee permitted Claimant to testify at length regarding her reasons for leaving her employment. The Referee tried to help narrow her answers, but never cut her off or stopped her from answering. In fact, the Referee asked Claimant four times following her lengthy narratives if there was anything else she wanted to tell him. See R.R., N.T. at 8, 9, 10, 12. Moreover, when Employer's counsel objected to Claimant's questioning of its witnesses, the Referee specifically stated: "Hold on for just a second. Let me give her some leeway. She's not represented. Okay." R.R., N.T. at 15. Accordingly, Claimant was provided a full and fair hearing.

Lastly, Claimant argues that the UCBR erred in failing to give her a remand hearing. Particularly, Claimant contends that, in addition to the above assertion that the Referee did not afford her appropriate time to testify, Claimant avers that she submitted substantiating evidence at the hearing that did not become part of the record, thus a remand hearing was warranted. We disagree.

After the hearing had concluded, Claimant asked the Referee: "My paperwork, can I have—can you make a copy?" R.R., N.T. at 19. The Referee replied: "I'll make a copy and return the original. Just go to the front window and they'll do that for you. Okay. Thanks for coming in." R.R., N.T. at 19. Evidently, Claimant had given the front desk more documents then she submitted at the hearing. Claimant submitted 52 additional pages of documents to the UCBR and to this Court that were not introduced during the hearing; therefore, they are not part of the certified record. "The UCBR cannot review evidence that was not submitted to the Referee, unless it directs the taking of additional evidence. Moreover, [t]his Court may not consider any evidence that is not part of the certified record on appeal." Umedman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 52 A.3d 558, 564 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

This inference is based on the fact that Claimant contends she submitted supporting documents "during the appeal hearing[,]" and refers to the same portion of the transcript referenced above in her brief. Claimant's Br. at 21. --------

"The UCBR has discretion to decide whether to grant a request for remand." Lopresti v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 55 A.3d 561, 563 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). Here, the record reveals that Claimant only submitted one exhibit during the hearing which, although it was objected to by Employer's counsel, was admitted into evidence. R.R., N.T. at 9. The exhibit, C-1 Health-Sustaining Medication Assessment Form, is included in the Certified Record. In addition, after accepting the exhibit, the Referee specifically asked Claimant if there was "anything else [she] need[ed] to put in the record?" R.R., N.T. at 9. Claimant did not offer any other documents into evidence. As the Referee gave Claimant a full and fair hearing, and did not prevent her from submitting any supporting documents during said hearing, a remand was not warranted. Accordingly, the UCBR did not err in denying Claimant's request for a remand.

For all of the above reasons, the UCBR's order is affirmed.

/s/_________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2013, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's August 15, 2012 order is affirmed.

/s/_________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge


Summaries of

Robinson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 26, 2013
No. 1726 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Feb. 26, 2013)
Case details for

Robinson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

Case Details

Full title:Maretta Ann Robinson, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of…

Court:COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Feb 26, 2013

Citations

No. 1726 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Feb. 26, 2013)