Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DAVID C. BLESSINGS v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/23/78)

decided: March 23, 1978.

DAVID C. BLESSINGS, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of David C. Blessings, No. B-138307.

COUNSEL

Louis M. Shucker, with him Barbara J. Hart, for appellant.

Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 346]

David C. Blessings (claimant) appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him benefits pursuant to 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. ยง 802(e) (willful misconduct). We affirm.

Claimant, a laborer employed by Grace Mines (employer), had a history of excessive, unexcused absences for which he had been given numerous warnings. In fact, he had been discharged at one time for excessive absenteeism and had been rehired with a final warning.

In early January 1976, claimant became ill and consulted his physician, Dr. W. L. King, on January 5,

[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 3471976]

. Claimant called in sick on January 8, 1976 and was absent from work from that date until his discharge. He or his wife telephoned periodically to advise the employer that he was still ill.

Sometime between January 27 and January 29, Dr. King completed an insurance form which claimant had secured from his employer. On this form, Dr. King indicated that claimant would be able to return to work on January 30. On that date, according to claimant, he woke up an "didn't feel up to going to work and I did not go." He then changed the January 30 date on the insurance form to indicate he would not be able to return to work until February 10.

The employer received this form on February 9 and, upon contacting Dr. King's office, learned that Dr. King had not changed the date. Claimant was subsequently discharged for his record of absenteeism, for his failure to return to work on January 30, and for unilaterally altering the insurance form. His application for unemployment benefits was denied by the Bureau of Employment Security, which denial was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.