[Emphasis added.] Under a predecessor statute before the Court in Employment Security Board v. LeCates, 218 Md. 202, 206, 145 A.2d 840, 842-43 (1958), an individual was disqualified for benefits "[f]or any week in which his unemployment is due to his leaving work voluntarily without good cause, or to his actual or threatened deliberate and wilful misconduct connected with his work, if so found by the Board." Judge Horney posed the rhetorical question for the Court: "When is the misconduct of an employee `deliberate and wilful'?

States with similar statutes have held that "connection with employment" is not limited to misconduct "which occurred during the hours of employment and on the employer's premises." Employment Security Board v. LeCates, 218 Md. 202, 210, 145 A.2d 840, 845 (1958). Accord: O'Neal v. Employment Security Agency, 89 Idaho 313, 319, 404 P.2d 600, 603 (1965); Nevel v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 32 Pa. Commw. 6, 377 A.2d 1045, 1047 (1977); Gregory v. Anderson, 14 Wis.2d 130, 136-37, 109 N.W.2d 675, 679 (1961), noted in 1962 Wis.L.Rev. 392. It is only necessary that the misconduct have such "connection" to the employee's duties and to the employer's business that it is a subject of legitimate and significant concern to the employer.

"In any judicial proceeding under this section, the findings of the Board of Appeals as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of said court shall be confined to questions of law." We have consistently followed the statutory provision, Barley v. Maryland Department of Employment Security, 242 Md. 102, 105, 218 A.2d 24 (1966); Employment Security Board v. LeCates, 218 Md. 202, 207, 145 A.2d 840 (1958); Mitchell, Inc. v. Maryland Employment Security Board, 209 Md. 237, 121 A.2d 198 (1956), and have held that in the absence of an allegation or proof of fraud, the findings of fact of the Board's referee, supported by evidence and adopted and affirmed by the Board, are conclusive upon us, Barley v. Maryland Department of Employment Security, supra, 242 Md. at 106. The Board of Appeals adopted the findings of fact made by the referee:

In its determination of whether a claimant has committed gross misconduct, DEED looks not only for "substandard conduct" on the part of the claimant, but also "for a wilful or wanton state of mind accompanying the . . . substandard conduct." Employment Security Board v. LeCates, 218 Md. 202, 208, 145 A.2d 840 (1958), quoting SANDERS, DISQUALIFICATION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, 8 Vand.L.Rev. 307, 334 (1955). DEED considers "two interrelated questions" in this determination:

See Baltimore Lutheran, 302 Md. at 661-62, 490 A.2d at 708. In Employment Security Board of Maryland v. LeCates, 218 Md. 202, 207, 145 A.2d 840 (1958), another case involving judicial review of an unemployment insurance claim, the Court of Appeals described the limited scope of review as follows: In unemployment compensation cases we have consistently held, as the law requires, that the findings of the Board as to the facts are conclusive, if there is evidence to support such findings.

Appellants argue that an employee's behavior must be "deliberate or intentional" in order to constitute misconduct within the meaning of section 8-1003. Failing to mention aggravated misconduct, the Nursing Home counters that the "[L]egislature provides for two distinct disciplinary findings — gross misconduct and simple misconduct," and that, quoting Employment Sec. Bd. of Md. v. LeCates, 218 Md. 202, 208, 145 A.2d 840 (1958), the Legislature "intended to distinguish between `deliberate and wilful misconduct' and `misconduct' of a lesser degree." Appellee's reliance on language from the Court of Appeals' opinion in LeCates is misplaced.

In its determination of whether a claimant has committed gross misconduct, DEED looks not only for "substandard conduct" on the part of the claimant, but also "for a wilful or wanton state of mind accompanying the . . . substandard conduct." Employment Security Board v. LeCates, 218 Md. 202, 208, 145 A.2d 840 (1958), quoting Sanders, Disqualification For Unemployment Insurance, 8 Vand. L.Rev. 307, 334 (1955). DEED considers "two interrelated questions" in this determination:

Department of Employment v. Owens, 75 Md. App. 472, 477, 541 A.2d 1324 (1988). In Emp. Security Board v. LeCates, 218 Md. 202, 145 A.2d 840 (1958), the Court of Appeals noted that such a determination will vary with each particular case. Here we "are not looking simply for substandard conduct * * * but for a wilful or wanton state of mind accompanying the engaging in substandard conduct.

Department of Employment v. Owens, 75 Md. App. 472, 477, 541 A.2d 1324 (1988). In Emp. Security Board v. LeCates, 218 Md. 202, 145 A.2d 840 (1958), the Court of Appeals noted that such a determination will vary with each particular case. Here we "are not looking simply for substandard conduct * * * but for a wilful or wanton state of mind accompanying the engaging in substandard conduct.

See 76 Am.Jur.2d Unemployment Compensation 57 (1974). The following language is found in the 1958 case of Employment Security Board v. Lecates, 218 Md. 202, 145 A.2d 840: We think we may assume that the legislature did not intend to limit misconduct "connected with" the employee's work to misconduct which occurred during the hours of employment and on the employer's premises. If it had, the language used would have undoubtedly expressed that intent.