[brief] Appellant, [...], was employed by [...] (“[...]”) as a Mechanical Helper from 1995 until June 4, 2021, when he voluntarily left his job.² (Pa1; Pa3).  Lambdon’s job duties included repairing boilers and the pipes inside the boilers.  (T16).  [...] is the owner of [...] while her son, [...], serves as a supervisor.  (T19).  Lambdon filed his claim for benefits on June 27, 2021, and was granted a weekly benefit rate of $517.  (Pa1).  ¹  The Procedural History and Counterstatement of Facts have been combined to avoid repetition and for the court’s convenience.  ² “Pa” refers to appellant’s appendix; “Ab” refers to his brief.  “T” refers to the transcript of the May 16, 2022 Appeal Tribunal hearing.  On October 26, 2021, the Department of Labor (“Department”) reviewed the assessment and determined that Lambdon was ineligible for benefits due to leaving work voluntarily.  (Pa1).  The Department’s determination resulted in a refund demand of $8,272.  Ibid.  Lambdon appealed the Department’s determination on October 29, 2021, to the Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”), and a hearing was held on May 16, 2022, during which Lambdon testified on his own behalf and Tarvis testified for the employer.  Ibid.  Lambdon testified that he resigned because of osteoarthritis of bilateral knees, which Lambdon claimed was aggravated by kneeling, bending down, and squatting at work.  (T9 - T10).  Lambdon acknowledged that he never asked his employer for an accommodation or another position as he believed there were no other positions available.  (T8-10; T17; T20).  He also never submitted any medical documentation that stated that he required accommodations or that he was incapable of performing his job.  (Pa1).  He simply complained about his knees to his employer, providing them verbal notice that he may resign in June 2021.  (T8-9).  Tarvis testified that she had no knowledge of her son, Scott, telling Lambdon that he could be replaced.  (T30).  She claimed that Lambdon gave only her son, Scott, verbal notice that he was retiring on June 4, 2021, and Scott relayed that information to Tarvis.  (T34).  According to Tarvis, there were no further discussions or meetings regarding Lambdon’s decision to retire.  (T32).  She testified that had Lambdon approached her to discuss the issues with his knees, shoulders, and legs, Tarvis would have explored different types of work options for him that may have been easier.  (T33).  The Tribunal affirmed the denial of benefits on May 17, 2022, finding that Lambdon left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work, and was therefore liable for a refund of $8,272 for the weeks ending July 3, 2021, through October 16, 2021.  (Pa3).  Lambdon appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Board of Review (“Board”) on August 2, 2022, and filed an amended appeal on August 11, 2022.  (Pa1).  In a decision dated November 16, 2023, the Board affirmed the Tribunal’s decision.  (Pa1).  The Board found that the medical documentation provided by Lambdon was dated in 2022, which was after Lambdon’s last day of work on June 4, 2021.  (Pa1).  Additionally, the Board held that the medical note, dated in 2022, verified that Lambdon had osteoarthritis of bilateral knees, but it did not establish that the job caused or aggravated his medical condition.  (Pa1; Pa39).  Further, the Board found that even if no other positions were available to Lambdon, he never sought an accommodation from his employer due to his health condition.  (Pa1).  This appeal followed.  ARGUMENT