Rodrigo 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. “Clearly, the referee and the Board were correct in denying benefits to the Claimant. Before one may qualify for unemployment compensation benefits, he must prove that he is able to work and available for suitable work. Koba v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 264 , 370 A.2d 815 (1977). Generally, a physical condition which justifies an employee leaving his employment will also prevent that employee from working at all. Molton Unemployment Compensation Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 190 , 166 A.2d 103 (1960). An employee terminating his employment for a necessitous and compelling reason is nonetheless ineligible for benefits if he is unavailable for suitable work. Baker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 18 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 503 , 336 A.2d 671 (1975). As this Court, has observed in the past, if an applicant for unemployment compensation benefits who is physically unavailable for work is not thereby disqualified from benefits, unemployment compensation will be transformed into health insurance. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Smith, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 471 , 360 A.2d 833 (1976). Since the referee and Bureau have found as a fact that the Claimant was not physically capable of engaging in gainful employment and that finding is based upon substantial evidence and is consistent with previous rulings of this Court as cited above, we are compelled to affirm the Board’s order.”

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