Otterbeck v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Otterbeck v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

434 A.2d 1337, 62 Pa. Commw. 116, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1805

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 30, 1981

DocketAppeal, No. 1976 C.D. 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 434 A.2d 1337 (Otterbeck v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Otterbeck v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 434 A.2d 1337, 62 Pa. Commw. 116, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1805 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appellant in this unemployment compensation case, a claimant, admitted that she left her work for Prudential Insurance Company for what she described at the referee’s hearing as a personality conflict with a supervisor which resulted in “rough working conditions,” never clearly described. These reasons are not compelling and necessitous causes for quitting one’s job and the compensation authorities’ denial of benefits was clearly correct on the merits.

The claimant’s further contention is that she was not afforded a full and fair administrative hearing because the referee did not understand, and therefore did not assist her in developing, her evidence concerning a corrective interview at which she contended that she was criticized for failing to do work placed in her assignment basket on her day off. On the contrary, [118]*118the claimant’s version of this incident was the subject of findings by both the referee and the Board of Review, both of which nevertheless correctly concluded that the claimant had not established a compelling and necessitous reason for voluntarily leaving her work.

Order affirmed.

Pee Curiam Order

And Now, this 30th day of September, 1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The appellant in this unemployment compensation case, a claimant, admitted that she left her work for Prudential Insurance Company for what she described at the referee’s hearing as a personality conflict with a supervisor which resulted in “rough working conditions,” never clearly described. These reasons are not compelling and necessitous causes for quitting one’s job and the compensation authorities’ denial of benefits was clearly correct on the merits.

The claimant’s further contention is that she was not afforded a full and fair administrative hearing because the referee did not understand, and therefore did not assist her in developing, her evidence concerning a corrective interview at which she contended that she was criticized for failing to do work placed in her assignment basket on her day off. On the contrary, [118]*118the claimant’s version of this incident was the subject of findings by both the referee and the Board of Review, both of which nevertheless correctly concluded that the claimant had not established a compelling and necessitous reason for voluntarily leaving her work.

Order affirmed.

Pee Curiam Order

And Now, this 30th day of September, 1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 A.2d 1337, 62 Pa. Commw. 116, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otterbeck-v-commonwealth-unemployment-compensation-board-of-review-pacommwct-1981.