Watkins v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – March 5, 2013
The
findings of the UCBR do not address the factual circumstances that one must
analyze with regard to the parties’ respective burdens of proof.
As to Claimant’s burden, the findings do not address:
(1) whether Claimant’s health reasons were of sufficient dimension to compel her to leave her employment;
(2) whether Claimant sufficiently informed Employer of her health problems; and
(3) whether Claimant is able and available for work if Employer can make a reasonable accommodation. See Lee Hosp., 637 A.2d at 698.
As to
Employer’s burden (assuming Claimant met her burden), the findings do not
address whether Employer made a reasonable attempt to identify and propose
possible accommodations for Claimant’s health problems. Id. at 699.
Without
such findings, we are unable to engage in effective appellate review. See
Stankiewicz v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 529 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1987) (holding where Board’s findings are inadequate, this Court cannot
perform appellate review and must remand for additional findings). Accordingly, we must vacate the Board’s order and Accordingly, we must vacate the Board’s order and remand the matter to the Board for the issuance of a new decision, including new findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Board, on its own or on further remand to a Referee, may take additional evidence or issue a new decision based upon the record before it if the Board determines that the record is sufficient for such purposes.
