Grimes Poultry Processing Corp. v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Initially, we note that physical disability may constitute a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving one’s employment and would not render a claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation. Kernisky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 199 , 309 A.2d 181 (1973); accord, Shearer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 444 , 364 A.2d 516 (1976). Of course, it is the claimant’s burden to demonstrate that the disability does constitute such a reason. See Shearer, supra; Tollari v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 589 , 309 A.2d 833 (1973). To establish physical disability as a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, a claimant must demonstrate that he is suffering from a physical infirmity that would justify leaving his employment. Shearer, supra; see Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 391 , 338 A.2d 702 (1975). Such demonstration must include medical evidence. Kubiak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 421 , 371 A.2d 257 (1977); Nedd v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 24 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 514 , 357 A.2d 268 (1976) ; Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Perry, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 429 , 349 A.2d 531 (1975), allocatur denied (1976); Taylor, supra. This evidence must indicate more than that the claimant is disabled, see Eckenrod v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nahas v. Commonwealth