Vital Support Home Health Care Agency, Inc. v. UCBR, Vital Support Home Health Care Agency, Inc. v. UCBR

Claimant Jeniffer Santiago worked full-time as a home health aide for Vital Support from July 2014 until February 2015; her steady client moved to Ohio on February 8, 2015.
Employer offered Claimant continued work only on an on-call basis with approximately one hour’s advance notice.
Two weeks before Claimant quit, her husband began night-shift work (10:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m.), making childcare difficult for Claimant on short notice.
Claimant testified she asked Employer (via Evelyn/coordinators) for a steady schedule to arrange childcare, attempted to secure alternate care, but could not find reliable childcare available on one-hour notice.
A referee denied benefits, finding Claimant did not exhaust alternatives or sufficiently notify Employer; the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reversed and awarded benefits, crediting Claimant’s testimony.
This Court affirmed the Board, holding its credibility and factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that lack of short-notice childcare can constitute necessitous and compelling cause when alternatives are exhausted.

Issue	Claimant's Argument	Employer's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant’s voluntary quitting was for "necessitous and compelling" cause under Section 402(b)	Childcare crisis (husband’s night shift) + Employer’s on-call schedule with ~1 hour notice made continued work untenable; she tried to find alternate care	Claimant did not exhaust alternatives and Employer in fact provided steady work/schedules after client left	Held for Claimant: Board credited her testimony that Employer offered only on-call work, she tried and failed to find short-notice childcare, satisfying necessitous and compelling cause when alternatives are exhausted
Whether the Board’s reversal of the referee was supported by substantial evidence	Board’s credibility determinations favor Claimant; record contains testimony supporting Board’s findings	Board ignored referee’s findings and relied on less-supported testimony from Claimant	Held for Board: appellate court defers to Board as fact‑finder; record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s credibility and findings

Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (board is ultimate factfinder; resolves credibility)
Chapman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 20 A.3d 603 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (substantial-evidence standard and view of evidence favoring prevailing party)
Popoleo v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 777 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (definition of substantial evidence)
Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (elements for necessitous and compelling cause)
Truitt v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 589 A.2d 208 (Pa. 1991) (short-notice childcare can constitute necessitous and compelling cause)
Blakely v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 464 A.2d 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (childcare issues may justify quitting)
Beachem v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 760 A.2d 68 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (generally must exhaust alternative childcare before quitting)
Johnson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 869 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (legal standard—necessitous and compelling cause is reviewable as question of law)