Court Opinion

ID: 9635445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:50:38.83541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:27.175903
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Williams, Jr. :
Respectfully, I dissent.
Claimant, an undiagnosed and untreated alcoholic, was discharged for violating work rules that prohibit reporting to work in an unfit condition. The majority, concluding that claimant deliberately contravened the work rules, affirmed the Boards denial of benefits under the willful misconduct provision of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1
*503Although the word “deliberate” denotes a “fully conscious often willful intent,”2 neither the Board nor the Court considered whether claimants alcoholism negated such willfulness. In enunciating a new rule of strict accountability, the Court disregards precedent, ignores the pernicious effects of claimants alcoholism and offends the humanitarian, remedial public policy underlying the Law.
The majority cites Mooney v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 404, 395 A.2d 675 (1978), aff'd per curiam, 487 Pa. 448, 409 A.2d 854 (1980), for the broad proposition that alcoholic claimants, regardless of the severity of their impairment, are responsible for their alcoholism-induced misconduct. See Majority Opinion at 3. Mooney establishes, however, that only those alcoholic claimants, who the factfinder determines have the ability to control their drinking, are responsible for their work lapses.
In Mooney, the Court affirmed an alcoholic claimants disqualification under Section 3 of the Law, 43 PS. §752, because he had evinced an ability to abstain from heavy drinking. The Section 3 ineligibility determination was based upon findings that the claimant (1) knew that he was a chronic alcoholic; (2) had drunk moderately in the past; and, (3) was partially rehabilitated.
In the case sub judice, the record indicates that claimant was unaware of his alcoholism and had not, therefore, undergone rehabilitation. I would remand for findings pertinent to claimants capacity to control the drinking which adversely affected his work. Id.; see also Durst Buster Brown v. Unemployment Compensation *504Board of Review, 56 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 135, 424 A.2d 580 (1981) (Alcoholic claimant engaged in willful misconduct for reporting to work under influence of alcohol because record revealed ability to control drinking.); Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1, 396 A.2d 480 (1979) , aff'd per curiam, 487 Pa. 448, 409 A.2d 854 (1980) (Alcoholic claimant disqualified under Section 3 of the Law for alcoholism-induced absenteeism because record established ability to control drinking.).3
If new findings establish that claimants alcoholism was so severe that he was incapable of abstaining from the drinking which resulted in the rule violation, his misconduct was neither deliberate nor willful, and he is not ineligible under Section 402(e) of the Law. Additional findings pertinent to claimants ability to, and availability for, work during his unemployment are required if claimant is otherwise eligible. Section 401(d)(1) of the Law, 43 PS. §801(d)(l).

 Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e).

 The term “deliberate” is defined as a “presumed or real awareness of the implications or consequences of ones actions . . . or by fully conscious often willful intent.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 596 (1966).

 Other jurisdictions that require factfinders to determine whether alcoholic claimants had the ability to abstain from drinking which resulted in their misconduct include Jacobs v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 25 Cal. App. 3d 1035, 102 Cal. Rptr. 364 (1972); Huntoon v. Iowa Department of Job Services, 275 N.W. 2d 445 (Iowa 1979); Craighead v. Administrator Department of Employment Security, 420 So. 2d 688 (La.Ct. App. 1982); and, Moeller v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 281 N.W. 2d 879 (Minn. 1979).