Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Randy Schlappich, No. B-203333.
Louis M. Shucker, for petitioner.
Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers and Craig, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barbieri.
[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 473]
Randy Schlappich, Claimant, appeals here the action of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in sustaining a referee's denial of benefits to Claimant under the provisions of Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law),*fn1 for willful misconduct connected with his work.
Claimant was employed as a truck driver by Alco Standard Corp. (Wyomissing Corp.), Employer, for ten months, and last worked on June 16, 1981, when he became disabled from an injury which he reported at 10:30 A.M. during his regular shift. He reported this as a work injury, but was turned down for Workmen's Compensation, apparently by the Employer's carrier, whereupon pursuant to company policy he was paid disability benefits at the rate of $70 per week and placed on disability leave until September 26, 1981. The referee made the following findings:
5. The claimant, from June 16, 1981 through September 26, 1981 was on a disability leave and received weekly benefits in the amount of $70 which was paid in accordance with the employer's policy.
[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 4746]
. While recuperating as a result of his injury of June 16, 1981 the claimant drove his motorcycle and became involved in an accident on July 26, 1981 and as a result received a broken wrist which was placed in a cast.
7. The claimant did not report to the employer until August 12, 1981 at which time he claimed he had reinjured his same hand on July 26, 1981 in a motorcycle accident, could not work, and filed another claim for benefits under the employer's program, entitling the claimant to an additional 26 weeks of benefits, should he be required to remain off the job for that length of time.
8. The employer had not received any word from the claimant following his visit of August 12, 1981 until sometime during the week ending September 25, 1981 at which time the claimant stated he would be able to return to work September 28, 1981.
9. On September 23, 1981 the employer discharged the claimant, notifying him by letter that he was discharged because of his excessive absenteeism record and his lack of responsibility to the employer in returning to work while recuperating from an illness and becoming involved in another accident requiring the claimant to remain ...