Summary
In Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Milauskas, 23 Pa. Commw. 218, 351 A.2d 291 (1976), we denied benefits because the claimant was not the sole or major support of the family.
Summary of this case from U.C.B.R. v. DollaOpinion
Argued January 8, 1976
February 5, 1976.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Filial obligations — Burden of proof — Support — New location.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment due to filial obligations is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 unless she proves that she has been the major support of the dependent family member for six months prior to termination of employment and that she has been required by the family situation to move to a place beyond reasonable commuting distance. [219-20]
Argued January 8, 1976, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., ROGERS and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 512 C.D. 1975, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Betty Milauskas, No. B-124743.
Application to Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
John C. Eichon, with him Lewis W. Wetzel, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
This is a direct administrative appeal by Betty Milauskas (Claimant) from a decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a denial of benefits on the ground that her unemployment is due to leaving work because of a marital, filial, or other domestic obligation or circumstance.
Section 402(b)(2) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(2).
Since Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment due to filial obligations, we must agree with the Board that she is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. As Judge WRIGHT wrote in Cochran Unemployment Compensation Case, 197 Pa. Super. 149, 152, 177 A.2d 26, 27 (1962):
"A study of the history of the development of Section 402(b)(2) indicates that it was clearly the intention of the Legislature to render ineligible for benefits a claimant who leaves work because of marital, filial, or domestic obligations, unless the particular claimant involved falls within the currently effective statutory exception."
Although there is evidence of record that Claimant has moved to a new location not within reasonable commuting distance, she has not established that during the six months prior to the termination of her employment, she provided the sole or major means of support for her mother. Crumbling v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 14 Pa. Commw. 546, 551, 322 A.2d 746, 748 (1974).
Therefore, we
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 1976, the decision and order of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby affirmed.