GOMBITA v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW
Ronald Gombita, Petitioner,
v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.
No. 2789 C.D. 2010.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted: August 26, 2011.
Filed: October 12, 2011.
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge; HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge; HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge.
OPINION NOT REPORTEDMEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON.
Ronald Gombita (Claimant), representing himself, petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that denied his claim for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) (voluntary quit).1 Claimant contends the Board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. BackgroundClaimant worked for Waste Management (Employer) as a full-time residential waste driver for approximately one month during March and April 2010. During that time, Claimant injured his left arm leaving him unable to work. Claimant subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was granted. Claimant received workers' compensation benefits throughout the time covered in this opinion. Notes of Testimony, 8/23/10 (N.T.), at 6.
A month after the injury, Claimant's treating physician informed Employer and Claimant that Claimant could perform certain work. Specifically, the physician allowed Claimant to perform light duty work, which included limited walking, standing, and lifting, and sedentary work.
Shortly thereafter, Employer notified Claimant by letter (June Letter), that a light duty position was available for him. The light duty consisted of filing paperwork, and picking up trash at the landfill hauling site with the aid of a shoulder bag. The letter directed Claimant to report to work the following Wednesday.
1. Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802 (b).
2. According to Claimant, because he filed a human resources complaint against a supervisor related to his workers' compensation claim, Employer instructed him to direct his contacts with Employer through Ms. Leslie Watts, a workers' compensation case worker. Notes of Testimony, 8/23/10, at 5, 9-10.
3. Our review is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether constitutional rights were violated. Oliver v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 5 A.3d 432 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (en banc).
4. Additionally, Claimant presented no evidence to support his argument that a Dr. Butterbaugh contacted Employer on Claimant's behalf in response to the June Letter. See Claimant's Br. at 5, 13. Further, this Court must disregard Claimant's attempts to present evidence that was not properly before the Board. See Grever v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 989 A.2d 400 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
5. Separately, in his brief Claimant refers to two documents: a letter from Claimant's Case Manager, and a report signed by Dr. Butterbaugh. He claims they were "used" at the referee hearing but were not included in the record for the Board's consideration.
Our review of the record reveals that neither document was presented or admitted into evidence at the referee hearing. Instead, Claimant submitted the Case Manager letter as an exhibit with his brief before the Board, and he attached Dr. Butterbaugh's report to his request for reconsideration by the Board. Certified Record at Item Nos. 27, 30. We discern no abuse of discretion in the Board's failure to base any of its findings on these extra-record documents. See Ferris v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 405 A.2d 1047 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Therefore, Claimant's argument lacks merit.