Opinion
No. 729 C.D. 2014
04-17-2015
Victor L. Bottenfield, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY
Victor L. Bottenfield (Claimant), pro se, petitions this Court for review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's (UCBR) April 17, 2014 order affirming the Referee's decision determining Claimant ineligible for Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits under Section 402(e) of the UC Law (Law) due to willful misconduct. Because Claimant has failed to preserve any issues for this Court's review, the appeal is quashed.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). Section 402(e) of the Law provides that a claimant shall be ineligible for UC benefits for any week where "his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work[.]" 43 P.S. § 802(e). This Court has described "willful misconduct" as:
(1) a wanton or willful disregard for an employer's interests; (2) a deliberate violation of an employer's rules; (3) a disregard for standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect of an employee; or (4) negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interest or an employee's duties or obligations.
On August 18, 2014, the UCBR filed an Application for Relief in the Nature of a Motion to Strike Claimant's Brief and to Dismiss the Appeal (Motion to Strike). On September 9, 2014, this Court ordered that the Motion to Strike would be decided with the merits of the appeal. Given our disposition of this appeal, the UCBR's Motion to Strike is moot.
Claimant was employed by Denver Logistics, LLC (Employer) as a full-time commercial driver's license (CDL) truck driver from November 28, 2012 until October 28, 2013. On March 20, 2013, Claimant informed Employer that on March 15, 2013, he had been cited for driving under the influence while driving a friend to the hospital to visit a severely ill relative. In October or November 2013, Claimant became aware that he would lose his CDL and that loss of his CDL would jeopardize his employment. Accordingly, he approached Employer about performing other work. Employer had no other work available but successfully assisted Claimant in finding employment at Denver Cold Storage (Denver), a separate company, to work in its freezer department. Claimant refused the offer of employment with Denver because the position involved working in cold storage and he believed it was a health risk. On October 24, 2013, Claimant informed Employer that he was terminating his employment because he was losing his CDL, and could not accept Denver's cold storage position for fear of jeopardizing his health. On October 29, 2013, Claimant lost his CDL.
On November 3, 2013, Claimant applied for UC benefits. On November 20, 2013, the Lancaster UC Service Center (UC Service Center) found Claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law. Claimant appealed, and on December 30, 2013, a Referee held a hearing. On January 17, 2014, the Referee affirmed the UC Service Center's determination under Section 402(e) of the Law. Claimant appealed to the UCBR. On April 17, 2014, the UCBR adopted and incorporated the Referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and denied Claimant UC benefits. Claimant appealed to this Court.
The Referee found that Section 402(e) of the Law was the "prominent section of the Law to be considered," and Claimant was ineligible for benefits under that section. Referee's Decision/Order at 2. However, the Referee also noted that Claimant would be ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b), because Claimant resigned from his position, and his refusal to work at the cold storage facility on the basis that it was a health risk was unsupported by competent evidence. Id.
"This Court's review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether errors of law were committed." Stugart v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 85 A.3d 606, 608 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
In his pro se brief filed with this Court, Claimant merely included a Statement of Jurisdiction, a Copy of Order, a Statement and Scope of Review, and the Argument in which Claimant asserted that he should not be deprived of UC benefits because he tried to remain employed with Employer and could not accept the cold storage position for health reasons. The brief does not conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.). Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4) requires that an appellate brief include a statement of the questions involved. Further, Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) provides in relevant part:
The statement of the questions involved must state concisely the issues to be resolved, expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail. The statement will be deemed to include every subsidiary question fairly comprised therein. No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.(Emphasis added). Claimant's brief does not include a Statement of Questions Involved. Further, Claimant has not set forth an argument that the UCBR's findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence, or that the UCBR committed an error of law, or abused its discretion when it determined that he was ineligible for benefits. While we acknowledge that this Court is "generally inclined to construe pro se materials liberally, [Claimant's] substantial noncompliance has impaired our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review." Robinson v. Schellenberg, 729 A.2d 122, 124 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (emphasis omitted). Thus, Claimant's appeal must be quashed.
Notwithstanding, even if we were to consider the basic questions of whether the UCBR's "findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether errors of law were committed[,]" we would find no error. Stugart v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 85 A.3d 606, 608 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). Claimant has not challenged any specific findings of fact. The law is well-settled that unchallenged findings of fact are conclusive on appeal. Pa. Liquor Control Bd. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 879 A.2d 388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). The facts established that Claimant was required to maintain a commercial driver's license, and could no longer maintain that license due to his conviction for driving under the influence. A claimant's failure to maintain a valid driver's license constitutes willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Law "where one of the prerequisites for employment is possession of a driver's license and an employee loses his driving privileges through his own fault[.]" Williams v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 651 A.2d 708, 710 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994); see also Manross v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 572 A.2d 49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). Claimant did not offer any evidence to demonstrate good cause to justify his willful misconduct. Accordingly, the UCBR properly found Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits.
This Court cannot accept Claimant's position that his friend's emergency justified him driving while intoxicated. --------
For all of the above reasons, the UCBR's order is affirmed.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2015, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's (UCBR) April 17, 2014 order is affirmed. The UCBR's Application for Relief in the Form of a Motion to Strike Claimant's Brief and to Dismiss His Appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
Phila. Parking Auth. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 1 A.3d 965, 968 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).