Dornblum v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) offer competent testimony that adequate health reasons existed to justify termination at the time of termination; (2) have informed the employer of the health problem, and (3) be available, where a reasonable accommodation is made by the employer, for work which is not inimical to his health.” (Dornblum v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (1983), 77 Pa. Commw. 547, 549 , 466 A.2d 747, 749 ; see Genetin v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (1982), 499 Pa. 125, 130-31 , 451 A.2d 1353, 1356 . See generally Deiss v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (1977), 475 Pa. 547, 553 , 381 A.2d 132, 135 ; Ruckstuhl v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (1981), 57 Pa. Commw. 302, 305 , 426 A.2d 719, 721 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 161 Pa. Commw. 573 - Ridley School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · 132 Ill. App. 3d 1094 - Burke v. Board of Review

2. “Where an employee because of a physical condition, can no longer perform his regular duties, he must be available for suitable work, consistent with the medical condition, to remain eligible for benefits. However, once he has communicated his medical problem to the employer and explained his inability to perform the regularly assigned duties, an employee can do no more. The availability of an employment position, the duties expected to be performed by one serving in that capacity, and the desirability of that individual for service in that capacity are managerial judgments over which the employee has no control. As long as the employee is available where a reasonable accommodation is made by the employer, that is not inimicable to the health of the employee, the employee has demonstrated the good faith effort to maintain the employment relationship required under the Act. ... To insist upon the employees initiating the quest for an alternative position, would require a meaningless ritual that does not further the objectives of the Act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moss v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review