R.F. Spagna v. UCBR
R.F. Spagna v. UCBR - 1200 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | May 25, 2017Background
- Claimant Robert Spagna, a warehouse supervisor for Philadelphia Truck Lines since July 2012, returned to work January 12, 2015 after heart surgery with documented medical restrictions (no lifting >20 lbs, no long standing, no extremes of weather, no >40 hrs/week); a January 5, 2015 note referenced sleep apnea and “should be on day shift.”
- Employer accommodated restrictions and Claimant worked second shift (8:00 p.m.–4:00 a.m.) without prior complaint.
- On January 13, 2016 Employer required a permanent shift change to third shift (midnight–8:00 a.m.); Claimant refused and quit the same day without attempting the new shift or providing current medical documentation dated at the time of separation.
- Referee found Claimant voluntarily quit without a necessitous and compelling reason and denied benefits under Section 402(b); Board affirmed, crediting Employer’s evidence that duties were unchanged and discrediting Claimant’s unsupported medical claim.
- Claimant appealed to Commonwealth Court asserting medical reasons (including aggravated condition and sleep apnea) constituted a necessitous and compelling reason and that he reasonably tried to preserve employment; the Court affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Spagna's Argument | Employer/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant voluntarily quit for a necessitous and compelling reason (Sec. 402(b)) | Medical restrictions (sleep apnea and cardiac limitations) made third shift medically untenable; thus quitting was compelled | Duties of third shift were the same as duties Claimant had performed on second shift; Claimant gave no current doctor note and did not try the shift | Court held Claimant failed to prove necessitous and compelling reason; affirmed denial under §402(b) |
| Whether Claimant sufficiently informed Employer and made reasonable efforts to preserve employment | Provided earlier 2015 notes and told Employer of limitations; relied on prior notes and belief Employer knew limitations | No current medical documentation at separation; Claimant never attempted the offered comparable work; Board found testimony not credible | Court held Claimant did not meet the burden to show he informed Employer and made reasonable efforts; must attempt alternative work or produce contemporaneous medical proof |
| Whether burden shifted to Employer to disprove sleep apnea restriction | Spagna argued his January 2015 note imposing day-shift restriction was unrefuted, so Employer must show change in condition | Board/majority treated Claimant as bearing burden to prove compelling reason and found Employer’s evidence (that Claimant had worked similar night shift without complaint) rebutted the restriction claim | Court rejected the dissent’s view; majority concluded Employer met its case by showing Claimant had worked night shift after the note and duties were materially the same |
Key Cases Cited
- Petrill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 883 A.2d 714 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (claimant bears burden to prove necessitous and compelling cause)
- Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (elements required to establish necessitous and compelling cause)
- Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD PC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 995 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (requirements when quitting for health reasons: competent testimony, employer notice, availability for accommodated work)
- Genetin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 451 A.2d 1353 (Pa.) (same principles for health-based voluntary quits)
- Leonarczyk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 397 A.2d 49 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (employee must attempt alternative compatible work before becoming unemployed)
- Kownacki v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 335 A.2d 868 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (must make reasonable effort to perform offered duties unless obviously beyond physical capability)