D.M. Minter v. UCBR
D.M. Minter v. UCBR - 2054 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 29, 2017Background:
- Denise Minter worked as a full-time anesthesia technician for UPMC from 1998 until October 30, 2015 and applied for UC after separation.
- She took leave for surgery (Nov. 2015) and later developed neurological/vestibular problems; Employer granted accommodated leave through July 20, 2016.
- On July 19–20, 2016, Minter’s physician completed a return-to-work form and an employer questionnaire indicating she was "not able to work with or without restrictions," though one section of the form listed sedentary work capacity, creating ambiguity.
- Employer warned that Minter would be separated if no documentation showed ability to return by August 3, 2016; no upgraded release was provided before the hearing.
- A referee found Minter not able/available for suitable work under Section 401(d)(1); the Board affirmed (noting Employer initiated separation), and this Court affirmed the Board’s denial of UC benefits.
Issues:
| Issue | Minter's Argument | Employer/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minter was "able and available" for suitable work (Section 401(d)(1)) | Minter: Although she couldn’t perform her prior job, physician restrictions (sitting most of the day, lifting <10 lbs) permitted sedentary/other work; thus she was able/available | Employer/Board: Physician twice reported she could not return to work with or without restrictions; presumption of availability rebutted and Minter failed to prove she could perform any suitable work | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports Board finding Minter was not able/available for the weeks at issue |
| Whether separation was a voluntary quit under Section 402(b) | Minter: Characterized separation as related to medical leave (implied voluntary?) | Board: Employer’s July 20 letter initiated the separation, so it was not a voluntary quit; Section 402(b) inapplicable | Court: Agreed with Board’s finding (Board reached same conclusion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 5 A.3d 432 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (en banc) (Board is ultimate fact-finder; credibility determinations are for the Board)
- Rohde v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 28 A.3d 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (presumption of availability rebutted by medical evidence; claimant must show some suitable work exists)
- Pifer v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 639 A.2d 1293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (employer must produce admissible evidence to rebut availability presumption)
- Pa. Elec. Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 450 A.2d 779 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (availability is a factual question for the Board)
- St. Clair Hosp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 151 A.3d 401 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (employer obligation to consider alternative positions when claimant notifies employer of medical restrictions)