Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Charles H. Davis, Jr., No. B-188740.
Jeffrey R. Norris, for petitioner.
William Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judge Blatt and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 123]
This is an appeal by Charles Davis (Claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's denial of benefits under the provisions of 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). We reverse the decision of the Board.
Claimant was employed as a truck mechanic by the Truck Stop of America for approximately seven months. On March 19, 1980, he suffered a work-related injury for which he received workmen's compensation from March 21, 1980 through May 5, 1980. Claimant was certified by his physician to return to work on May 5, 1980. On May 5, he telephoned his employer and informed him that because of continued difficulty with the injury he would not be returning to work at that time. Claimant returned to work on May 14, 1980 and presented a return to work slip from his physician dated May 14, 1980. The employer discharged the Claimant because of his absence from May 5, to May 14, 1980.
Claimant sought and was denied unemployment compensation from the Office of Employment Security. After a hearing, a referee found that Claimant's
[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 124]
absence was without good cause and was in disregard of the standard of behavior an employer has a right to expect of an employee. The referee concluded that Claimant's absence constituted willful misconduct in connection with his work and Claimant was therefore ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1 On appeal, the Board found, inter alia, that the Claimant did not return to work after being certified to do so and did not advise his employer of his absence but waited until May 14, 1980 to return to work.
The scope of our review of determinations by the Board is well established. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 378 A.2d 829 (1977). Inquiry by this Court is limited to whether there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of fact and whether in reaching its conclusion the Board committed an error of law. Taylor, 474 Pa. 351, 378 A.2d 829 (1977); Roach v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 424, 376 A.2d 314 (1977).
In the case before us, Claimant alleges and the Board now concedes that the ...