The Court will reverse a decision to grant or to deny remand only for an abuse of discretion. Fisher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 696 A.2d 895 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). The Referee questioned Procito about her reasons for quitting and gave her the opportunity to call and to question her witness. Testimony and proposed testimony about why her partner quit her job was irrelevant. Finally, Procito would not be entitled to benefits even if the following the spouse doctrine were applied because the necessity to relocate must be caused by circumstances beyond the control of the spouse and must not be a matter of personal preference. A personal preference is not necessary or compelling. Hammond v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 131 Pa.Cmwlth. 166, 569 A.2d 1013 (1990) (<HOLDING>). II Several standard principles govern the
holding that fedrcivp 26b3 does not require absolute protection for opinion work product and noting that these materials may be discovered and admitted when mental impressions are at issue in the case and the need for the materials is compelling recognizing that it is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way leaving the court to do counsels work holding that wifes move to oregon was a matter of personal preference and husbands leaving work and following to preserve the family was not for necessitous and compelling cause holding that new statute which required proof that asbestos exposure was substantial contributing factor to claimants medical condition could be applied to pending cases and did not abrogate claimants vested right because she was still able to pursue her cause of action and recover for injury caused by her husbands exposure to asbestos statute merely affected methods and procedure by which that action was recognized protected and enforced not the cause of action itself holding opinion work product may be discovered when mental impressions are at issue and need for material is compelling