Paolucci v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
118 A.3d 1233
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Claimant (Paolucei) worked at Wal‑Mart and suffered a work‑related concussion on July 17, 2010; employer filed a Notice of Compensable Payable and paid total disability benefits.
- Employer obtained an IME in December 2010 that concluded Claimant could return without restrictions; Claimant disputed the IME and continued to receive workers’ compensation while her treating physicians had not cleared her.
- In a July 11, 2011 workers’ compensation deposition (taken at employer’s request), Claimant said she could not perform her pre‑injury supervisory duties but thought she might be able to perform a lighter job (food inspector).
- Employer contacted Claimant (and spoke with her attorney) about positions in early 2011; communications thereafter are unclear. Employer discharged Claimant on August 4, 2011 while she was still receiving total disability benefits; the WC matter was settled September 22, 2011.
- Claimant applied for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits October 9, 2011. The UC Service Center initially denied benefits; the Board found Claimant was able/available as of July 11, 2011 and ultimately concluded she committed willful misconduct by failing to notify/accept work, denying benefits.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed the Board, holding the Board’s factual findings did not support a legal conclusion of willful misconduct because (1) employer did not show it offered suitable light‑duty work after July 11, 2011, (2) the IME and WC litigation procedures govern communications about ability to work, and (3) employer had a duty under the Workers’ Compensation Act to request verification and to offer available light‑duty work.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Employer offered work after July 11, 2011 and Claimant refused | Claimant: no evidence Employer made an offer after July 11; she did not refuse any offer | Employer: attempted contacts and unresponsiveness justify finding Claimant failed to accept/notify | Held: Insufficient evidence Employer offered work after July 11; Board’s finding not supported; employer failed to carry its burden |
| Whether Claimant’s communications (WC deposition and counsel’s role) can constitute willful misconduct for UC purposes | Claimant: deposition responses were to employer’s counsel and counsel directed communications to counsel; she disputed IME and had not been cleared by treating physicians | Employer: Claimant was able/available as of July 11 and failed to notify or return to work; litigation/counsel involvement does not excuse noncommunication | Held: Court: WC‑process governed expectations; it was unreasonable to expect Claimant to bypass counsel or treat the employer’s IME as final release; employer had duty to request verification and to offer suitable work first |
| Whether the reasonable‑expectation standard for willful misconduct differs for employees on WC disability | Claimant: WC statute and procedures define duties and timing for verification/offers | Employer: reasonable expectation to notify when cleared; precedent allows expecting return after leave ends | Held: For workers’ compensation claimants, employer’s reasonable expectations are governed by WC Act procedures (e.g., §311.1 verification, employer’s duty to offer suitable jobs) |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 336 A.2d 867 (Pa. 1975) (reasonable expectations of employers vary by employer)
- Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 450 A.2d 287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (employee failed to return at end of leave and violated employer notification policy)
- Geesey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 381 A.2d 1343 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (employee on sick leave must report back when cleared or notify employer of reasons for failing to return)
- DeRiggi v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 856 A.2d 253 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (examples of misrepresentation and expected standards of behavior)
- Groover v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 579 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (lying or misrepresentation as willful misconduct)
- Eidem v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Gnaden‑Huetten Memorial Hospital), 746 A.2d 101 (Pa. 2000) (employer must produce evidence that work within claimant’s limitations is available)