Case Name: Frederick Emmitt, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1985-11-18
Citations: 93 Pa. Commw. 71
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 2634 C.D. 1984
Parties: Frederick Emmitt, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.
Judges: to President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Rogers, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 71–76

Head Matter:
Frederick Emmitt, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.
Submitted on briefs July 8,1985,
to President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Rogers, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three.
Loralyn McKinley, with her, Harold I. Goodman, for petitioner.
John W. English, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
November 18, 1985:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Senior Judge Kalish,
We affirm the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's decision which denied benefits to Frederick Emmitt on the ground that he had voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
Emmitt worked for the Hatfield Packing Company for three days as a casing puller on the kill floor where the butchered pigs were cut up for processing. The Board found that Emmitt voluntarily terminated his employment because he believed that the work was making him nauseous and unable to consume food. However, the Board went on to decide that Emmitt had not presented "adequate competent evidence from which it could be determined that he had a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily quitting his employment." Emmitt contends that the Board erred in finding his testimony inadequate to meet his burden of proof.
Where a claimant alleges that health problems justified his voluntary termination, he must offer competent evidence to meet his burden of proof. Deiss v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 475 Pa. 547, 381 A.2d 132 (1977). While this standard does not require a claimant to provide medical testimony to meet his burden of proof, "there may appear before the Court cases where the applicant's testimony and supporting documents are inadequate." Steffy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 367, 372, 453 A.2d 591, 594 (1982).
Here the Board's findings of fact and discussion show that the Board considered Emmitt's testimony, but found it inadequate to meet his burden of proof. The Board is the ultimate fact finder and the sole arbiter on the issue of credibility and evidentiary weight, so that even uncontradicted testimony may be disregarded. Carriers Terminal Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 586, 449 A.2d 873 (1982).
The Board did not arbitrarily or capriciously disregard the evidence, therefore we affirm the denial of benefits.
Order
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in Decision No. B-233492, dated August 14,1984, is affirmed.