Rohde v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 410
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant Rohde voluntarily left his dispatcher job with Health Ride due to health issues requiring daily cardiac rehabilitation and medical appointments.
- Claimant sought to continue working with adjusted hours, but claimed Employer would not accommodate his medical schedule.
- Claimant temporarily worked for Rohde's Personal Care and East Hills Ambulance, indicating ongoing employment, including a part-time arrangement.
- Employer's witnesses testified prior accommodations were provided and discussed potential arrangements, but no firm promise to modify his schedule for rehabilitation was made.
- Board found Claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting but later denied benefits under 401(d)(1) for availability and attachment to the labor market.
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed the Board, holding Claimant was able and available for work and reasonably attached to the labor market, making him eligible for benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantial evidence supporting Board findings? | Rohde argued Board findings about limited hours were not substantial. | Board contended findings were supported by credible testimony and evidence. | Board findings supported by substantial evidence. |
| Was Rohde able and available for suitable work under 401(d)(1)? | Rohde maintained he remained able and available and had new employment indicating market attachment. | Board concluded Rohde’s medical appointments limited availability and job market attachment. | Rohde was able and available for suitable work and reasonably attached to the job market; benefits awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 502 A.2d 738 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (definition of substantial evidence and standard of review)
- Taylor v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 378 A.2d 829 (Pa. 1977) (year and weight of evidence standard)
- Molnar v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 397 A.2d 869 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (presumption of availability and rebuttal by restrictions)
- Harwood v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 531 A.2d 825 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (availability with imposed employment conditions)
- Myers v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 330 A.2d 886 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (reasonable opportunity to secure work despite restrictions)
- Wilson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 354 A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (special case distinguishing flexible vs. inflexible availability)
- Scardina v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 537 A.2d 388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (self-imposed time restrictions and meaningful labor market attachment)
- Kuna v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 512 A.2d 772 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (unemployability does not equate to health insurance coverage under unemployment law)
- Carter v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 442 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (limitations on availability analyzed in context of eligibility)
- Bliley Elec. Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, not provided (not provided) (reference to Bliley Elec. Co. for standard of witness credibility and evidence weighing)