50 Pa. Commw. 108 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1980
Opinion by
Claimant Ellen Zibelman appeals from an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review decision affirming the referee’s determination that she was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b)(1), of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. §802(b) (l),
Claimant was employed as a dental assistant and her duties included assisting the doctor in surgery procedures, which required direct patient contact.
Claimant returned to the office only to pick up her paycheck, although the doctor testified that he kept the position open for claimant for a week.
On appeal, claimant asserts that the referee erred as a matter of law in deciding the case under the provisions of Section 402(b)(1), and asserts that, if the referee had permitted the introduction of testimony on the issue, claimant would have proved that she was discharged for conduct that did not amount to “willful misconduct” under Section 402(e), 43 P.S. §802 (e), and was therefore eligible for benefits.
First, it is clear from the record that the referee did not in any way prohibit claimant from introducing her theory of discharge. Claimant’s attorney argued at length on the merits of the Section 402(e) theory. However, whether a termination is a voluntary quit or a discharge is a matter of law based on the particular facts of the case as found by the compensation authorities. Simpson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 246, 395 A.2d 309 (1978).
Claimant does not assert that any necessitous or compelling cause existed for her termination, but
The referee’s finding that-claimant voluntarily left her employment is supported by substantial evidence and is correct as a matter of law; therefore, our scope of review is limited, and we affirm the board’s order.
Order
And Now, this 13th day of March, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (No. B-166922) dated December 15, 1978, is affirmed.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended.