Opinion ID: 1195340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The KDHR Referee and the Review Board

Text: The KDHR referee held a full evidentiary hearing. Grede was represented by counsel; Pouncil was not. Grede put on new evidence that Pouncil had injured her right wrist and hand between late 1993 and early 1994 and had received workers compensation for that injury. Duckworth testified he received this information before terminating Pouncil's employment and it, combined with her answers on the questionnaire, formed the basis for her dismissal. Grede presented medical records from a clinic concerning Pouncil's previous hand and wrist injury. During her testimony before the referee, Pouncil verified that she sustained an injury while working at LSI. A metal rack fell on her right hand, causing a contusion. The clinic treated Pouncil for this injury. Upon a repeat visit, the physician also diagnosed Pouncil with tendonitis in her right wrist. Pouncil had work restrictions because of the injury. She wore a splint on her right hand and was restricted from any work that required gripping, squeezing, tugging, pulling, [or] pushing with her right hand. Pouncil also told the referee that an earlier employer had filed a workers compensation claim for her previous injury. The reason she gave for the employer filing is that the accident was seen by others and the injury was uncontroverted. The referee asked Pouncil about her failure to disclose the previous work injury and related workers compensation claim. Pouncil responded, I wasn't thinking, and I honestly wasn't thinking. During cross-examination, she stated, I didn't think about that, I mean, yes I did hurt my hand but, and I did see a doctor for it. But [it's] not as much as you guys are making it out to be. The referee concluded: (1) Pouncil was dishonest on the HMR, (2) it was highly improbable that the claimant simply `forgot' that she received workers compensation benefits from such a serious injury, (3) this dishonesty constituted misconduct, under K.S.A. 44-706(b)(1), (4) Pouncil was ineligible for unemployment benefits, and (5) the examiner's decision should be reversed. The referee entered a nunc pro tunc order requiring Pouncil to repay any unemployment benefits she may have received. Pouncil appealed to the Board. Without further hearings, the Board adopted the referee's decision and affirmed the denial of benefits.