C.I. Horchuck v. UCBR
2004 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Claimant Caitlin Horchuck worked as a medical office assistant and was required to obtain a certification card within one year of hire (hire: June 1, 2015; deadline: June 1, 2016).
- Employer repeatedly reminded Claimant of the requirement and produced a signed document specifying a copy of the certification card was required within the year and that retesting could take up to three months.
- Claimant took the exam on May 26, 2016, failed, and was discharged on June 1, 2016 for failure to obtain certification.
- Initial referee hearing proceeded in both parties’ absences after Employer’s continuance request was denied; Referee affirmed Claimant’s eligibility based on documents.
- Board remanded for a new hearing to receive testimony about Employer’s nonappearance and the willful-misconduct issue; at remand Employer explained scheduling/staffing conflict and produced testimony; Claimant testified she faced scheduling/technical issues with the testing center but offered no documentation.
- Board found Employer had good cause for initial nonappearance and concluded Claimant’s failure to obtain certification in a timely manner constituted willful misconduct under Section 402(e); Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board abused discretion by remanding and whether Employer had good cause for missing first hearing | Remand was improper; Employer did not adequately explain nonappearance | Employer had staffing change, emailed for continuance, reasonably believed it notified the office | Board did not abuse discretion; Employer had good cause for nonappearance |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Board finding that Claimant had to provide the certification card (not just any documentation) | Any documentation proving passage would suffice | Employer produced signed document requiring a copy of the certification card | Substantial evidence supports Board finding that card was required |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Board finding about possible three-month delay before retesting | Claimant: could retake twice within three months; employer’s timeline disputed | Employer’s policy and signed notice say retake could require up to three months; employer advised early testing | Substantial evidence supports Board finding on retest delay |
| Whether Claimant’s failure to obtain certification was willful misconduct | Claimant: had good cause (personal problems; testing center rescheduled) and attempted in good faith | Employer: claimant delayed, provided no documentation of testing disruptions, waited until six days before deadline | Court held claimant’s showing insufficient to prove good-faith effort; failure amounted to willful misconduct and disqualifies for benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeill v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 511 A.2d 167 (Pa. 1986) (party failing to appear must show good cause to avoid prejudice to hearing schedule)
- Primecare Medical, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 760 A.2d 483 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (benefits may be allowed where claimant made demonstrable good-faith effort to obtain required licensure)
- Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (definitions of willful misconduct)
- Millersville State Coll. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 335 A.2d 857 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (academic failure after good-faith effort is not willful misconduct)
- Fisher v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 696 A.2d 895 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (Board’s remand discretion reviewed for abuse)