Opinion
No. 937 C.D. 2013
11-13-2013
Linda R. Millwood, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEADBETTER
Petitioner, Linda R. Millwood, petitions pro se for review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that affirmed the decision of the unemployment compensation referee denying unemployment compensation benefits on the basis that she was discharged from her employment for willful misconduct and, therefore, was ineligible to receive benefits. We affirm.
SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) terminated Millwood's employment as a bus driver on the ground that she had driven recklessly, passing through an intersection in Philadelphia as the light turned red and hitting a pedestrian who had entered the intersection. Millwood's application for unemployment benefits was denied pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law due to her termination for willful misconduct. Thereafter, she appealed and a referee received evidence from both parties. Based on employer's evidence, including a video recorded from a camera positioned on the bus that showed the position of Millwood's bus approaching the traffic light as it changed from green to yellow and then red, the referee found that Millwood's bus had not yet reached the intersection by the time the light turned from yellow to red. The referee further found that in traveling through the intersection after the light had turned red, "Claimant made a choice that brought with it a high measure of risk that a pedestrian might be hit or that a bus Claimant was operating could have a collision with another vehicle going along Market Street. That was a reckless choice . . . ." Millwood v. SEPTA, No. 13-09-B-1606 (Referee Decision dated April 1 2013). Based on this finding, the referee sustained the denial of benefits. Millwood appealed to the Board of Review, which adopted the referee's findings and conclusions, specifically discredited Millwood's testimony and affirmed the decision of the referee.
The record indicates only that the pedestrian was "knocked down."
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). Section 402(e) provides that a claimant shall be ineligible for compensation for any week in which her employment is due to a discharge from work due to willful misconduct connected with her work.
After adopting the referee's finding, the Board confusingly added, "Further, the Board finds that the traffic signal changed to red before the bus was in the middle of the intersection." To the extent that this finding, while not literally inconsistent with, undercuts the referee's finding that the light was red before Millwood entered the intersection, it is not supported by the evidence. The video clearly shows that the referee's finding was accurate. --------
On appeal to this court, Millwood contends that testimony on behalf of employer should have been rejected and her testimony should have been credited to establish that she reasonably slid through a changing light in order to avoid a sudden deceleration that might have endangered her passengers and that the pedestrian carelessly entered the intersection without checking traffic flow. Millwood further argues that, while she received a traffic citation for disregarding a red light, she was not cited by police for reckless driving, and therefore, the Board erred in concluding she drove recklessly. Millwood cannot prevail on either argument.
Credibility and weight of testimony is solely for the Board's determination. McCarthy v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 829 A.2d 1266, 1269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). We must accept the Board's determination and examine the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Chapman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 20 A.3d 603, 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). Here, the evidence clearly establishes that Millwood failed to obey the traffic signal. This constitutes misconduct that justifies the denial of benefits. Whether or not a police officer issued a citation for reckless driving is not determinative of whether Millwood drove in a manner that constitutes misconduct for the purpose of ineligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
The Board's finding that Millwood disregarded a traffic signal and drove through a red light on a busy city street, a traffic light in a location with which she was familiar as it was along the route she usually drove, establishes a wanton disregard for employer's rules regarding safe driving. This wanton disregard of employer's interests establishes willful misconduct that justifies the denial of benefits. See Oliver v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 5 A.3d 432, 438 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of November 2013, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge