Claimant,
a truck driver, held able to work and eligible for UC benefits, because
- Employer did not introduce any
evidence that Claimant’s high blood pressure or failure to pass the physical
examination was caused by his conduct or inaction, and
- No evidence was presented that
Claimant suffered from any medical restriction other than high blood pressure
or that he was restricted from any work that did not require driving.
The
Board’s conclusion that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section
401(d)(1) of the UC Law, was unsupported by the record and contrary to law.
Section 401(d)(1) requires only that the Claimant be “able to work and
available for suitable work.” 43 P.S. § 801(d)(1). “Suitable work” is not
limited to the particular type of job at which the claimant was previously
employed. Rohde v. UCBR, 28 A.3d 237, 243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011); Hower
& Son v. UCBR, 509 A.2d 1383, 1386 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986); Davy v. UCBR,
392 A.2d 330, 332 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978); see also Section 4(t) of the
Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 753(t) (defining “Suitable Work” as
“all work which the employe is capable of performing”). A claimant is “able to
work and available for suitable work” under Section 401(d)(1) if he is capable
of doing and available for some kind of paid work. Rohde, 28 A.3d at
243; Hower & Son, 509 A.2d at 1386; Davy, 392 A.2d at 332.
“The law does not require that the employee be available for full-time work, for
permanent work, for his most recent work, or for his customary job, so long as
the claimant is ready, willing, and able to accept some suitable work.” Rohde,
28 A.3d at 243.
While
the burden is on the claimant to prove availability for suitable work, Rohde,
28 A.3d at 243; Hower & Son, 509 A.2d at 1386, Claimant’s failure to
appear at the Referee’s hearing did not prevent him from satisfying that
burden.
Claimant’s registration for
unemployment compensation created a presumption that he is able to work and
available for suitable work, and that presumption satisfies his burden of
proof, unless it was rebutted by the evidence before the Board. Penn Hills
School District v. UCBR, 496 Pa. 620, 625, 437 A.2d 1213, 1216 (1981); Rohde,
28 A.3d at 243; Hower & Son, 509 A.2d at 1386.
There
was no evidence before the Board that suggested or would support any inference
that Claimant had restricted the hours that he could work, that he was not
seeking work or that he was disabled from working. The only evidence of any
limitation on Claimant’s employability was that he had a level of high blood
pressure that prevented him from obtaining a commercial driver’s license. This
showed only that he could not work at his existing job as a truck driver or do
other work that required driving. That is not sufficient to overcome the
presumption that Claimant was able and available to work. The mere fact that a
claimant has a medical condition that disables him from working at his prior job
and other jobs requiring driving does not make him unable to work or
unavailable for suitable work. Hower & Son, 509 A.2d at 1386
(claimant held eligible for benefits despite failure to appear at referee
hearing because evidence that claimant suffered seizure and that doctor had
restricted him from jobs requiring driving did not negate that he was able to
work and available for suitable work).
_____________________________
The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive
value, but not as binding precedent." 210
Pa. Code § 67.55. Citing
Judicial Opinions.
