OpiNioN. by
Claimant Helen Davis appeals an order of tbe Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming *586a referee’s decision which denied her benefits nnder the Unemployment Compensation Law.1
The claimant, last employed as a cleaner in Pittsburgh, quit her job and moved to Maryland, where she filed am interstate unemployment compensation claim. The board found that the claimant’s husband was in poor health and that the claimant quit so that she and her husband could live with her son, where her husband would always have someone to look after him.
.The board held that the claimant is ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Law2 because she'didmot prove a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting her job.3
The claimant testified that, approximately one month before she quit, her husband’s condition began to get worse and she told her acting supervisor that she might have to leave work because of her husband’s illness. The board candidly admits that there is no basis for its finding that ‘ ‘the claimant never discussed her personal problems with her supervisor.”
To be eligible for benefits the claimant was not necessarily required to ask for a leave of absence or to tell her employer when she could return to work. The rule in Deiss v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 475 Pa. 547, 381 A.2d 132 (1977) is addressed to injured claimants who could return to work with their employer in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Check v. Unemployment Compensa *587 tion Board of Review, 56 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 47, 423 A.2d 1140 (1981).
The hoard made no finding that claimant’s husband’s condition might improve so that the claimant could, at some reasonably foreseeable time, leave him unattended and return to work.4 In fact, we find nothing in the record to support such a finding.5
The claimant introduced uncontradicted medical evidence showing that her husband has a serious heart condition and the claimant’s uncontradicted testimony was that her husband ‘ ‘ can’t be left alone. ’ ’ Although the board did find that “the claimant was frequently absent from work when she had to care for him,” it made no finding on the key point of whether the claimant’s husband needed constant attention.6
*588Because we decide that the hoard’s conclusions are not supported by necessary findings, we remand this case to the board for additional proceedings.7 Kostek v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 271, 392 A.2d 909 (1978). The board may, of course, remand to the referee for the taking of additional evidence and findings.
Order
. Now, November 8,1982, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Beview, Decision No. B-193621, dated March 25, 1981, is hereby vacated and this case is remanded to the Board for action consistent with this opinion.