Opinion
No. 2167 C.D. 2012
03-27-2013
Erik Merritt, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI
Erik Merritt (Claimant) petitions, pro se, for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the Referee's denial of unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) for failing to provide Quaker Valley Foods, Inc. (Employer) with medical documentation justifying his absences from work. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Board.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e). That section provides, in relevant part:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week -
***
(e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work, irrespective of whether or not such work is "employment" as defined in this act.
Claimant was employed by Employer as a Floating Supervisor from May 7, 2012, until May 23, 2012. On May 18, 2012, Claimant called Employer to report that he would be absent from work that day due to illness. Employer's Human Resources Manager informed Claimant that because he was still in his introductory period of employment, he was required to supply Employer with medical documentation justifying his absence from work. Claimant was subsequently absent from work on May 21, 22 and 23, and failed to provide Employer with the required medical documentation. As a result, Claimant was discharged on May 23, 2012.
Claimant filed for unemployment compensation benefits with the UC Service Center, which granted benefits, and Employer appealed. Before the Referee, Judy Harris (Harris), Employer's Human Resources Manager, testified that under Employer's "call-off" policy, Claimant was required to "call in to his supervisor and let him know that he won't be in, give the reason why he won't be in, and follow up with us and let us know when he's going to return." (July 17, 2012 Hearing Transcript at 6). She stated that Claimant was told about the call-off policy on three separate occasions, including the day he was hired. Harris testified that Claimant called off on May 18, 2012, and informed her at that time that he had gone to the emergency room, could not drive, and would be at work the following Monday, May 21. She stated that during that conversation, she told Claimant that he would need to provide a doctor's note to Employer. Harris further testified that Claimant did not come to work or call off on May 21, and when she called him on that date to find out if he was coming in, he informed her that he still could not drive and would not be returning to work for one week. She stated that she again informed Claimant at that time that he needed to provide medical documentation justifying his absences. Finally, Harris testified that when she called Claimant again on May 22, he said that his girlfriend would get documentation from the emergency room and fax it to Employer that night, but on May 23, Employer had still not received the required documentation.
Claimant testified that he was absent from work due to an ear infection and vertigo on May 18 and 21, 2012. He stated that he was aware of Employer's call-off policy, and that he reported his absences on those dates. He testified that he left a voicemail for his manager on May 21, but did not actually speak with anyone on that date. He explained that he was no longer sick as of May 22, but did not report to work on May 22 or 23 because of confusion over the starting time for his shift. He further explained that he attempted to contact his supervisors on those days to no avail. Claimant admitted that he was provided with medical documentation upon his discharge from the hospital on May 18, but testified that Human Resources Manager Harris never asked him to submit any medical documentation prior to May 23, 2012. Claimant further denied telling Harris that his girlfriend would go to the hospital and fax the requested documentation to Employer.
The Referee, noting that this Court has consistently held that an employer has a right to request and receive medical documentation from an employee justifying the employee's excessive absenteeism due to alleged illness, concluded that because Claimant did not supply Employer with the requested medical information, Employer met its burden of proving that Claimant committed willful misconduct. Claimant appealed to the Board, which adopted and incorporated the Referee's factual findings and legal conclusions. The Board also specifically discredited Claimant's testimony in its entirety; credited Employer's testimony that Claimant indicated that he would provide medical documentation to substantiate his alleged illness but then failed to do so; and found that Claimant "violated employer's call off policy, despite his awareness thereof." (Board's September 27, 2012 Decision at 1). Accordingly, the Board affirmed the Referee's denial of benefits. This appeal by Claimant followed.
Our review of the Board's decision is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated, or necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. Frazier v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 833 A.2d 1181, 1183 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
On appeal, Claimant argues that the Board erred in determining that Employer met its burden of proving that he committed willful misconduct. Specifically, he contends that Employer denied him sufficient time to produce the required medical documentation. Claimant alleges that Employer's Human Resources Manager had not requested medical documentation prior to May 23, 2012, and that he explained to her on that date that he would not be able to submit the required medical documentation until the following day, yet he was terminated on May 23, 2012, without being given a chance to provide the documentation.
Although the Law does not define the term "willful misconduct," the courts have defined it as:
(1) wanton or willful disregard for an employer's interests; (2) deliberate violation of an employer's rules; (3) a disregard for the standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect of an employee; or (4) negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interest or an employee's duties or obligations.
This Court has repeatedly held that a claimant's absence from work without providing employer with proper medical documentation, where employer requires such documentation, constitutes willful misconduct precluding an award of unemployment compensation benefits. See, e.g., Owens v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 748 A.2d 794, 799 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000); Lausch v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 679 A.2d 1385, 1392-93 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996); Braxton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 400 A.2d 694, 696 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
Here, Employer's witness credibly testified that she directed Claimant to provide medical documentation justifying his absences from work on at least two separate occasions prior to the date of his termination. Conversely, the Board rejected as not credible Claimant's testimony that Employer never asked him to submit medical documentation prior to his termination. As we have repeatedly held, in unemployment compensation proceedings, the Board is the ultimate fact-finder, empowered to determine the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicts in evidence. Lee v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 33 A.3d 717, 721 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). Because the testimony of Employer's witness constituted substantial evidence upon which to find willful misconduct on the part of Claimant, we find no error in the Board's holding.
Even if we were to accept Claimant's argument that he had insufficient time to produce the required medical documentation, we would still deny benefits because the testimony establishes that Claimant violated Employer's call-off policy by not properly reporting his absences from work on May 21, 22 and 23, despite his awareness of that policy. --------
Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2013, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated September 27, 2012, at No. B-542207, is affirmed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1 A.3d 965, 968 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Where a claimant is discharged for a work rule violation, the employer has the burden to show that the claimant was aware that the work rule existed and that the claimant violated the rule. Id. The employer must also establish that the claimant's actions were intentional and deliberate, and the employee's actions must be considered in light of all the circumstances, including the reasons for his or her non-compliance with the employer's directives. Id.