From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith Unempl. Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 11, 1958
142 A.2d 207 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)

Opinion

March 25, 1958.

June 11, 1958.

Unemployment compensation — Evidence — Question of fact for board — Discharge for willful misconduct or because of illness.

In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that the question was whether claimant was discharged because of his drinking during working hours or because he had become ill and the employer had replaced him without giving him sufficient time to recover and return to his employment, and that there was evidence to support either contention, it was Held that the question was one of fact for the board and that its decision that claimant was eligible for compensation should be affirmed.

Before RHODES, P.J., GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ. (HIRT, J., absent).

Appeal, No. 34, Oct. T., 1958, by employer, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-45233, in re claim of John H. Smith. Decision affirmed.

Frank Kingston Smith, with him Hamilton, Smith Darmopray, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.


Argued March 25, 1958.


The claimant, John H. Smith, was denied unemployment compensation by the bureau, but the referee and the board ruled that he was eligible for compensation. The employer appealed, contending that the claimant was discharged for "willful misconduct connected with his work," which would disqualify claimant for benefits under the terms of section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 802(e).

The claimant was employed by the appellant from September 1954 to December 20, 1956. On the latter date he was taken to the hospital suffering from delirium tremens, acute toxic hepatitis and GI tract hemorrhage. The claimant's wife notified the employer of the illness. The employer thereupon sent his personal physician to the hospital to see the claimant and he continued the claimant on the payroll until after his release from the hospital. After claimant was released from the hospital, he asked for his job back, and was told he had been replaced.

There is evidence that the claimant had been drinking intoxicating liquor numerous times while working at the appellant's place of business. This was "willful misconduct connected with his work," for which the employer could have discharged him. If the claimant was discharged for this reason, he would not be entitled to unemployment compensation. Guede v. Unemployment Compensation Board, 162 Pa. Super. 479, 58 A.2d 197 (1948); Bates Unemployment Compensation Case, 171 Pa. Super. 529, 90 A.2d 379 (1952).

The question here is whether he was discharged because of his drinking during working hours, or whether he was discharged because he had become ill and the employer replaced him without giving him sufficient time to recover and return to his employment. There is evidence to support either contention. It is, therefore, a question of fact for the board. Tronieri Unemployment Compensation Case, 164 Pa. Super. 435, 65 A.2d 426 (1949). It found for the claimant.

Decision affirmed.


Summaries of

Smith Unempl. Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 11, 1958
142 A.2d 207 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)
Case details for

Smith Unempl. Compensation Case

Case Details

Full title:Smith Unemployment Compensation Case. Adams, Appellant, v. Unemployment…

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 11, 1958

Citations

142 A.2d 207 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)
142 A.2d 207

Citing Cases

Chambers v. Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Review

The Courts of this Commonwealth have consistently held that an employe who reports for work in an intoxicated…