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.

HARRY C. SENFT v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/31/79)

decided: January 31, 1979.

HARRY C. SENFT, 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 Harry C. Senft, No. B-144031.

COUNSEL

Robert C. Sprenkle, Jr., for petitioner.

Elsa Newman, Assistant Attorney General, with her Gerald Gornish, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, DiSalle and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 226]

Harry C. Senft has appealed from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming

[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 227]

    a referee's decision denying him unemployment benefits for his asserted wilful misconduct 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).

Senft had worked for American Chain and Cable Company for twenty-one years when he was discharged in the following circumstances. He became ill and consulted his physician who gave him a writing stating the fact of the illness and that "he should be able to return to work August 2, 1976." Senft testified that the doctor told him that, because his illness was largely due to emotional problems, he, Senft, should be the judge of when it would be wise to return to work and that he believed that he had the doctor's allowance to alter the date for his return on the doctor's statement. Senft did not return to work until August 9, 1976 when he submitted the doctor's report altered by him to read: "he should be able to return to work August 9, 1976." The employer learned of the alteration and discharged Senft for making it.

For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we believe that the Board's order denying compensation should be reversed and that the matter should be remanded for additional evidence and further disposition.

The referee made the following finding of fact:

2. Claimant had been ill and produced for his employer the doctor's notice indicating what date he was able to return to work, which date had been altered by the claimant to indicate an additional week of illness for ...


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.