Case Name: Levy Unemployment Compensation Case
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1962-06-13
Citations: 198 Pa. Super. 447
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 130
Parties: Levy Unemployment Compensation Case.
Judges: Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 198
Pages: 447–449

Head Matter:
Levy Unemployment Compensation Case.
Argued April 11, 1962.
Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
Morton B. DeBroff, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Raymond Kleiman, Deputy Attorney General, and David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
June 13, 1962:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Montgomery, J.,
Claimant had a valid separation from her former employer, Eljer Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as of September 30, 1960. She received unemployment compensation benefits until February 26, 1961, when they were discontinued due to her pregnancy. In early May, 1961, she applied for benefits, and on June 29, 1961, she was offered a position with the Bureau of Employment Security which she failed to accept, because she was going out of town and would not be back until the following week.
The Bureau of Employment Security denied benefits, the referee reversed and allowed benefits, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, after a remand hearing, reversed the referee and again denied benefits.
Our examination of the record discloses evidence to support the board's finding that claimant ivas interviewed on June 28, 1961, and given a definite job offer on the following day. The board's acceptance of the evidence establishing these facts is conclusive and binding on this Court. Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 400, 116 A. 2d 271. Therefore, she must have substantial and reasonable grounds for refusing offered work. Cohen Unemployment Com pensation Case, 189 Pa. Superior Ct. 140, 149 A. 2d 186.
We are constrained to hold that dental appointments, subject to cancellation or change, do not constitute such grounds.
Decision affirmed.