IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bonnie L. Ferrero, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 738 C.D. 2016

: SUBMITTED: September 30, 2016

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge 

HONORABLE JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE HEARTHWAY FILED: November 18, 2016

Bonnie L. Ferrero (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the 

March 9, 2016, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review 

(Board) affirming the decision of a referee to deny Claimant unemployment 

compensation (UC) benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment 

Compensation Law (Law).1 We affirm.

 

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

802(e). Section 402(e) of the Law provides that an employee shall be ineligible for benefits for 

any week “[i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge . . . from work for willful 

misconduct connected with his work.” 43 P.S. § 802(e).
2

Claimant was employed as a behavioral health case manager by St. 

Luke’s Hospital (Employer) from November 20, 2010, through September 25, 

2015. (Findings of Fact (F.F.), No. 1.) Employer discharged Claimant on 

September 25, 2015, for violation of Employer’s policies and poor work 

performance. (F.F., No. 11.) Claimant filed a claim with the UC service center on 

October 4, 2015. The UC service center awarded Claimant benefits concluding 

that she was not ineligible for UC benefits under section 402(e) of the Law, 43 P.S. 

§ 802(e), because Claimant did not engage in willful misconduct. Employer 

appealed to the referee who conducted a hearing.

The referee found that Employer had a policy, of which Claimant was 

aware, requiring its employees to act ethically and in the best interest of their 

patients and to protect their patients’ rights and refrain from the unauthorized 

discussion of patients’ confidential information. (F.F., No. 2.) 

On September 25, 2015, Claimant had a telephone conversation with a 

patient’s wife (Wife). Claimant was or should have been aware that the court had 

issued a Protection from Abuse order (PFA) relating to patient and Wife. Claimant 

gave Wife legal advice, explaining how to dispose of patient’s property and how to 

divorce patient. (F.F., Nos. 3-5.) Claimant’s conversation was overheard by 

Employer’s nurse case manager and reported to Employer. (Referee’s Decision, 

1/7/16, at 2.)

Employer suspended Claimant and conducted an investigation of the 

incident. During the investigation, Employer audited Claimant’s charts and
3

discovered that many of the charts were either incomplete or incorrect. Claimant 

was ultimately discharged for violating Employer’s policies and for poor work 

performance.2 (F.F., Nos. 6-8, 11.) 

The referee found that Claimant’s conduct in speaking with and 

advising Wife violated Employer’s policy and amounted to willful misconduct. 

The referee further found that Claimant failed to properly justify her actions and

determined that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under section 402(e) of 

the Law. (Referee’s decision, 1/7/16, at 2-3.) Claimant appealed to the Board, 

which adopted the referee’s findings and conclusions, and affirmed. Claimant now 

petitions this court for review.3

Claimant contends that the Board erred in determining that Employer 

proved willful misconduct. 

Willful misconduct is defined as: (1) a wanton and willful disregard of 

the employer’s interests; (2) a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules; (3) a 

disregard of the standards of behavior that an employer rightfully can expect from 

 

2

The referee determined that Claimant’s failure to complete her paperwork or to do so 

properly did not amount to willful misconduct because Employer continuously tolerated such 

conduct by Claimant. Thus, this issue is not before our court.

 

3 Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, 

whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by 

substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704. In 

reviewing the record to determine whether it contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s 

findings, we must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give that 

party the benefit of all logical and reasonable inferences deducible therefrom. Stringent v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 A.2d 1084, 1087 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). 
4

its employees; or (4) negligence that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil 

design, or an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or the 

employee’s duties and obligations. Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board 

of Review, 5 A.3d 432, 438 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (en banc). 

“Where a claim of willful misconduct is based upon violation of 

company rules or policies, the employer has the burden to prove: 1) the existence 

of a reasonable rule or policy, 2) that the employee knew of the rule or policy, and 

3) that the employee willfully violated the rule or policy.” Vought v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 504 A.2d 425, 426 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1986). If the employer proves a work rule violation, the burden shifts to the 

employee to show good cause for her actions. Chapman v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 20 A.3d 603, 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). “The 

employee establishes good cause where her actions are justified or reasonable 

under the circumstance.” Id. 

Claimant does not contest that there was a work rule, only that she did 

not violate the rule. Claimant asserts that Employer’s witness only heard one side 

of the conversation and misconstrued what she heard. Claimant states she

discussed with Wife treatment options for patient; paying the mortgage on the 

house while patient was hospitalized; calling an attorney about protecting patient 

and Wife’s joint assets during patient’s hospitalization; and options for serving 

patient with divorce papers. Claimant also asserts that she was unaware of the 

PFA until Employer mentioned it at the referee’s hearing. Claimant contends that 

case managers are to involve family members in a patient’s care-plan and that 
5

patient signed a Release of Information (ROI), which authorized Claimant to speak 

with Wife.4

Employer’s witnesses testified regarding the conversation Claimant 

had with Wife.5 The Board deemed Employer’s witnesses credible and resolved 

the conflicts in the testimony in Employer’s favor. A review of the record reveals 

that there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings and its 

determination that Claimant violated Employer’s policy by contacting Wife and 

revealing confidential information to Wife and advising Wife against patient’s 

interest.

“In [UC] proceedings, the Board is the ultimate fact finder, and it is 

empowered to resolve all conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility 

of witnesses.” Procito v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 945 

A.2d 261, 262 n. 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (en banc). Where substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s findings, credibility determinations made by the Board are 

 

4

The ROI was not submitted into evidence. However, Employer presented testimony

that the ROI was limited to information for dispositional planning purposes.

5

Employer presented testimony that Claimant gave Wife legal advice on how to dispose 

of patient’s property, including taking ownership of their residence; told Wife that she had a 

legal right to take half of the patient’s assets, including his 401(k) account; suggested Wife serve 

the patient with divorce papers while he was hospitalized even though Employer had previously 

concluded that this would not be in the patient’s best interest; told Wife to tell patient that she 

and their son would be fine without him; and told Wife that she should treat patient like a child 

because that was how he was acting. Employer further testified that following the conversation, 

patient’s attorney called Claimant and patient’s family sent a letter of complaint to Employer. 

(N.T. at 16-17, 22, 34.)
6

not subject to review by this court. Duquesne Light Company v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 648 A.2d 1318, 1320 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

Once Employer presents sufficient evidence to establish willful 

misconduct, the burden shifts to Claimant to prove good cause for violating 

Employer’s policy. See Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 

943 A.2d 363, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Claimant merely reargues that her version 

of the facts should be believed over Employer’s, asserting that if she did violate 

Employer’s work rule, she did so unintentionally.6 This proffered excuse neither 

justifies Claimant’s actions nor makes them reasonable. Because Claimant’s 

actions were neither justified nor reasonable under the circumstances, Claimant did 

not establish “good cause” for violating Employer’s policy.

Accordingly, because the Board properly concluded that Claimant 

was discharged for willful misconduct under section 402(e) of the Law, we affirm.

__________________________________

JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge

 

6 As stated previously, the Board resolved all conflicts in testimony in Employer’s favor 

and against Claimant. Thus, Claimant’s version of what she said to Wife and the applicability of 

the ROI are discredited. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bonnie L. Ferrero, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 738 C.D. 2016

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 18th day of November, 2016, we hereby affirm the 

order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.

__________________________________

JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge