IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sharon A. Lountzis, :

: No. 1354 C.D. 2015

Petitioner : Submitted: January 22, 2016

:

v. : 

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: March 2, 2016

Sharon A. Lountzis (Claimant) petitions for review of the June 30, 

2015 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which 

affirmed a referee’s decision and held that Claimant was ineligible for benefits 

under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 We 

affirm.

Claimant was employed as a full-time licensed practical nurse (LPN) 

with Golden Living Center (Employer), a skilled nursing care facility, from

 

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937), 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. 

§802(e). Section 402(e) provides than an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any 

week in which her unemployment is due to her discharge or temporary suspension from work for 

willful misconduct connected with her work.
2

November 10, 2003, to March 27, 2015. Employer has a policy providing that, if a 

resident falls, a licensed nurse is to assess the resident for injuries and offer any 

necessary emergency treatment. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 31a-32a.

2

The 

policy also sets forth ten tasks the licensed nurse is to perform, and it specifically 

requires the licensed nurse to record the resident’s vital signs, response to 

neurological assessment, recent food and fluid intake, diagnosis, medications, and 

relevant history. R.R. at 31a.

On March 19, 2015, a certified nursing assistant (CNA) notified 

Claimant that a resident had fallen in the hallway. Claimant found the resident 

 

2

Employer’s “Falls Change of Condition Guidelines for Completion” policy includes the 

following:

GUIDELINE STATEMENT: To assess individual condition after 

a fall occurs and to identify the reason and/or risk factors for the 

fall in order to prepare a plan of care to reduce the potential for 

future falls. 

DEFINITIONS: Fall definition: A fall is a sudden change in 

position usually involving the floor. Finding a resident on the floor 

or lowering/assisting a resident to the floor is considered a fall. 

GUIDELINE: Policy: It is the policy of the center to complete the 

Change in Condition Report-Post Fall Investigation Summary after 

every known resident fall. 

Procedure:

If a resident falls . . .

1. The licensed nurse will assess the resident for injuries and 

provide the necessary emergency treatment. Initiate the center 911 

policy and procedure if appropriate. 

2. The licensed nurse shall initiate the Change of Condition 

Report-Post Fall Investigation Summary. This shall be kept in the 

resident’s medical record. 

R.R. at 31a.
3

lying on the floor, did a quick visual assessment, and did not notice anything 

seriously wrong with the resident. Claimant knew that G.P., another LPN, was 

assigned to the fallen resident’s unit and saw G.P. at the nurse’s station. Claimant 

called out to G.P., told the CNA to stay with the resident, and walked toward the 

nurse’s station. 

Claimant and G.P. returned to the resident, and G.P. noted that, 

pursuant to Employer’s policy, it was necessary to get a supervisor/registered nurse 

before moving her. Claimant returned to her work. G.P. left the resident with the 

CNA and went to find a supervisor. The supervisor arrived on the floor 

approximately fifteen minutes later,3and she performed an assessment. 

Employer suspended Claimant on March 20, 2015, pending an 

investigation, and discharged her on March 27, 2015, for violating its policy. The 

local job center determined that Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct 

and was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e). Claimant appealed, and a 

referee held a hearing at which both parties participated without benefit of counsel. 

Kelly Brown, Employer’s director of nursing, testified that Employer 

discharged Claimant for gross negligence after she failed to assess a fallen resident 

as required by Employer’s policy.4 Brown acknowledged that Claimant was not 

assigned to care for that particular resident, but she said that a nurse’s duty is to 

care for all residents at the facility, regardless of assignments. Brown stated that 

since she became director of nursing in July 2014, she has emphasized through 

 

3

The witnesses gave slightly different estimates of the length of time that the resident 

was left alone on the floor with the CNA. 

4 Brown stated that Employer discharged two employees based on the March 19, 2015 

incident. 
4

nursing meetings and daily communications that all employees are responsible for 

all of the residents. Additionally, Brown testified that performing assessments is 

within the scope of practice of any licensed nurse, whether a registered nurse or an 

LPN. According to Brown, Claimant should have completed an assessment of the 

patient and assisted her back to her wheelchair. R.R. at 5a-6a. 

Brown further testified that the “fall” policy, created in November 

2014, was discussed at two separate nursing meetings that Claimant had attended. 

She added that Claimant was discharged after Employer completed its 

investigation into the incident, in accord with Employer’s disciplinary policy. R.R. 

at 7a-11a, 15a-16a. 

Claimant testified that an LPN is not permitted to move a patient 

without a supervisor’s approval and she had always understood the policy to mean

that a registered nurse was responsible for assessments. She said that she did not 

recall being told otherwise by Brown and was shocked to learn that she was being 

discharged for violating the policy. R.R. at 11a-14a. Claimant stated that she did 

not perform all of the tasks listed in the policy; “[s]ince it was not my patient, I left 

it up to her nurse and the supervisor. If there – she was in imminent danger, I 

would’ve done something then, if nobody was there, but I did pass it on to her 

nurse . . . .” R.R. at 13a.

Claimant testified that she shared Brown’s beliefs that an employee

should help any resident who needs assistance and said that she went back to her 

work because she believed that G.P. had assumed responsibility for the resident’s 

care. R.R. at 16a-17a. Claimant acknowledged that she did not take the resident’s 

vital signs, but she explained that in order to do so, she would have had to leave the 
5

resident anyway and return to the nurse’s station to retrieve her blood pressure cuff 

and other equipment. R.R. at 17a.

The referee found that: Employer’s policy outlines the procedures to 

be followed when a resident falls; Claimant attended two meetings during which 

the policy was explained; and Employer makes it clear to employees that they are 

responsible for every resident, not just those directly under their care. (Findings of 

Fact Nos. 5-8.) Citing Claimant’s own testimony, the referee further found that 

when Claimant was summoned to a resident who had fallen on the floor, she did 

only a visual assessment before leaving her to get the LPN assigned to her care. 

(Findings of Fact Nos 9-12.) The referee determined that Claimant did not 

perform the required assessment because the resident was not her assigned patient.

Concluding that Claimant failed to demonstrate good cause for violating 

Employer’s policy, the referee affirmed the job center’s determination that she is 

ineligible for benefits under section 402(e) of the Law. 

Claimant appealed to the Board, which affirmed the referee’s 

decision. The Board adopted the referee’s findings and conclusions and 

specifically noted that Claimant did not credibly establish good cause for her 

failure to follow Employer’s reasonable policy. Claimant now appeals to this 

Court.

5

 

5 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been 

violated, whether errors of law were committed, or whether findings of fact are supported by

substantial evidence. Procyson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 4 A.3d 1124, 

1127 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
6

Initially we note that an employer contesting a claimant’s right to 

benefits under Section 402(e) bears the burden of proving willful misconduct.6 

Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363, 369 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2008). If the employer satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to 

the employee to demonstrate good cause for her actions. Lausch v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). A 

claimant establishes good cause by showing that her actions were justified or 

reasonable under the circumstances. Roberts v. Unemployment Compensation 

Board of Review, 977 A.2d 12, 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). Whether or not an 

employee’s actions amount to willful misconduct is a question of law subject to 

this Court’s review. Noland v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 

425 A.2d 1203, 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). 

Claimant first argues that Employer did not satisfy its burden to prove 

that she violated its policy. Claimant asserts that she acted reasonably and fulfilled 

her duties to the best of her ability; she had no reason to believe that she would be 

disciplined for her actions; and that she could not consciously violate Employer’s 

rule because it is vague and does not specifically define who is obligated to take 

actions. 

However, in making these arguments, Claimant relies on facts 

different from those found by the Board. In unemployment compensation 

proceedings, the Board is the ultimate fact-finder, empowered to determine the 

 

6 While the Law does not define the term willful misconduct, our courts have defined it 

as including: wanton or willful disregard for an employer’s interests; deliberate violation of an 

employer’s rules; disregard for standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect of 

an employee; or negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer’s interest or an 

employee’s duties or obligations. Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 

787 A.2d 284, 288 (Pa. 2001).
7

credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicts in evidence; the Board’s findings are 

conclusive on appeal where they are supported by substantial evidence. Curran v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 752 A.2d 938, 940 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2000). 

Contrary to Claimant’s assertions, Brown’s testimony is substantial 

evidence demonstrating that Claimant knowingly violated Employer’s policy. 

Brown testified that Claimant was present at two meetings during which the policy 

was reviewed with employees. Additionally, Claimant admitted that she 

performed only a quick visual assessment of the fallen resident. Thus, Employer’s 

burden to prove a policy violation was met.

Claimant next argues that Brown’s repeated references to the fact that 

the resident was left on the floor for fifteen minutes and Brown’s failure to 

challenge Claimant’s testimony that the resident did not require first aid indicate 

that Claimant’s discharge was improperly based upon extraneous factors. In this 

regard, Claimant maintains that her conduct was consistent with applicable rules 

and her concern for the resident’s well-being.

Again, Claimant relies on her preferred version of the facts, rather 

than those found by the Board. The fact that a party may have given a different 

version of the events or might view the facts differently than the Board is not 

grounds for reversal if substantial evidence supports the Board's findings. 

Middletown Township v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 A.3d 

217, 223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). The law is clear that the Board is the ultimate finder 

of fact and arbiter of witness credibility. Peak v. Unemployment Compensation 

Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383, 1385, 1388 (Pa. 1985).
8

Because Employer satisfied its burden of proof, the burden shifted to 

Claimant to show good cause for her actions. The Board did not credit Claimant’s 

testimony that she acted in accordance with her understanding of Employer’s 

policy; therefore, Claimant did not prove good cause for her conduct.

Our review of the record confirms that the Board’s findings are 

supported by substantial evidence. Those findings, in turn, support the Board’s 

conclusion that Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct rendering her 

ineligible for benefits under section 402(e) of the Law.

Accordingly, we affirm.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sharon A. Lountzis, :

: No. 1354 C.D. 2015

Petitioner : 

:

v. : 

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 2

nd day of March, 2016, the order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated June 30, 2015, is affirmed. 

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge