Court Opinion

ID: 9697327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:14:02.572618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:31.665734
License: Public Domain

FRIEDMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
The referee in this case correctly stated that the burden of proving willful misconduct is on the Employer, and the Em*272ployer attempted to meet that burden by proving that the Claimant was absent from work on a number of occasions. As the majority correctly notes, once the Employer establishes a prima facie case of willftd misconduct, the Claimant, in order to prevail, must prove the existence of good cause; in this case, the Claimant testified that all of her absences were due to illness, a valid defense to a charge of willful misconduct due to excessive absences from work. While the referee’s choice of language in his decision is somewhat less than precise, I believe it is clear that the referee chose to believe the Claimant’s testimony.
I must note that the Employer here never argued that the referee misplaced the burden of proof in this case. With regard to the question of willful misconduct, the Employer argued (1) absences even due to illness should constitute willful misconduct where the Employer is a hospital, (2) that the Claimant should have taken a leave of absence and (3) that the record contained no substantial evidence to support the referee’s finding that the Claimant was ill on the days she missed work. Because the Employer has not argued to us that the referee misplaced the burden of proof, I believe it is error for the majority to vacate the Board’s order on a matter not presented to us.
As to the arguments actually presented, I believe that all are meritless. With regard to the question that hospitals should be treated differently from other employers, I must note that the Employer offers no authority for such a novel position. The Employer’s argument that the Claimant should have sought a leave of absence is based upon our decision in Ralston v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 18 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 378, 336 A.2d 654 (1975). In that case, we held that an employee was guilty of willful misconduct when he failed to follow a work rule which required the employee to seek medical attention whenever he was required to leave the barge while on duty. The Employer failed to prove the existence of such a work rule in the present case. Finally, the Claimant’s own testimony constituted substantial *273evidence for the referee’s finding that the Claimant was actually ill on the days she missed work.
I agree with the majority’s disposition of the Employer’s argument concerning Section 401(d). As the Employer’s arguments presented do not require a reversal, I would affirm.