Seyler v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 03 October 1984
• Citation: 481 A.2d 1262,85 Pa.Cmwlth. 392
• Parties: Ronald SEYLER, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 1262

481 A.2d 1262 85 Pa.Cmwlth. 392 Ronald SEYLER, Petitioner,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs Sept. 10, 1984.
Decided Oct. 3, 1984.

Daniel L. Haller, Aliquippa, for petitioner.

Charles Hasson, Harrisburg, for respondent.

Before ROGERS, CRAIG and MacPHAIL, JJ.

CRAIG, Judge.

Ronald Seyler appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review upholding a referee's decision that Seyler's two negligent accidents [85 Pa.Cmwlth. 393] with his employer's van within six months of his

Page 1263

employment with Muzak of Pittsburgh constituted willful misconduct under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, ¹ 43 P.S. § 802(e), thereby disqualifying him for benefits.

In related arguments, Seyler contends that Muzak did not carry its burden of proving willful misconduct, Blount v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 77 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 627, 466 A.2d 771 (1983), and that the referee's findings of negligence are inconsistent and not supported by substantial evidence. ² We note that the referee did not make specific findings that either accident was actually caused by Seyler's negligence. The pertinent findings are:

2. The claimant had had a chargeable accident on January 13, 1982 whereby damage was sustained to his vehicle in the amount of $1,662.00. The accident was due to bad weather conditions and no other persons or vehicles were involved.

3. At that time, the claimant was given verbal warnings concerning the accident sustained on January 13, 1982 by the general manager and the service supervisor.

* * *

5. On June 2, 1982 the claimant had entered the entrance ramp to a highway.

6. While the claimant was coming down the entrance ramp, he did note that there was a pick-up truck ahead of him and he could not determine whether the truck's brakelights were working.

[85 Pa.Cmwlth. 394] 7. When the claimant approached the entrance to the highway, he checked to determine if he would be able to pull onto the highway and as a result the claimant drove his van into the back of the pick-up truck.

However, in the discussion section of his decision, the referee made the following statements, which indicate that he based the denial of benefits on Seyler's negligence in both accidents:

The claimant had three accidents during the short period of time that he was employed by Muzak of Pittsburgh of which two were considered to be the fault of the claimant ... the referee finds that the claimant's conduct in the instant case rises to the level of willful misconduct with reference only to the accidents that he incurred. (Our emphasis.)

As we noted in Schappe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 249, 252, 392 A.2d 353, 355 (1978), a referee's finding that an accident was "chargeable to the company" is not equivalent to a finding that the employee's negligence caused the accident. Accord Parke v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 382, 393 A.2d 62 (1978) ("preventable" accidents are not the equivalent of "negligent" accidents).

Included in the record is an accident report, prepared by Seyler,...