Wise
v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – March 25, 2015
Claimant
held to have quit her job when she failed to get proper certification for one
possible position and did not respond to employer’s offer of another position
within the time alloted.
Capricious
disregard
The
court rejected claimant’s allegation that the UCBR capriciously disregarded
competent evidence regarding several issues.
A capricious disregard of
evidence occurs where the fact finder willfully and deliberately disregards
competent and relevant evidence that one of ordinary intelligence could not
possibly have avoided in reaching a result. Spencer v. City of Reading
Charter Board, 97 A.3d 834, 842 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). The Pennsylvania
Supreme Court has explained that review for capricious disregard of competent
evidence is an “appropriate component of appellate consideration in every case
in which such question is properly before the court.” Leon E. Wintermyer,
Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Marlowe), 812 A.2d 478, 487
(Pa. 2002). In Wintermyer, the Supreme Court noted that where there is
substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual findings and those
findings support the legal conclusions, “it should remain a rare instance in
which an appellate court would disturb an adjudication based upon capricious
disregard.” Id. at 487 n.14. The standard announced in Wintermyer applies
whether one or both parties present evidence and, thus, overruled this Court’s
earlier-announced paradigm that appellate review for capricious disregard of
evidence was limited to the circumstance where the burdened party was the only
party to present evidence and did not prevail. See, e.g., Lautek
Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 588 A.2d 1007,
1010 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991).
Disturbing an agency’s
adjudication for a capricious disregard of evidence is appropriate only where
the factfinder has refused to resolve conflicts in the evidence, has not made
essential credibility determinations or has completely ignored overwhelming
evidence without comment. Hinkle v. City of Philadelphia, 881 A.2d 22,
27 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). In Hinkle, this Court, citing Wintermyer,
explained that:
“Capricious disregard” then is just another name for the
agency abusing its discretion and is an error of law when the agency fails to
give an indication that it has examined countervailing substantive testimony
that had to be considered at arriving at its decision.
The capricious disregard standard then is nothing more than a
shorthand way of referring to an amalgam of existing overlapping legal and
constitutional standards mentioned above that safeguard against arbitrariness
by state and local administrative agencies by requiring a meaningful
explanation of why the losing party’s overwhelming evidence was not accepted.
Id. (footnote omitted). An appellate court conducting a review
for capricious disregard of material, competent evidence may not reweigh the
evidence or make credibility determinations. Spencer, 97 A.3d at 842
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (citing Wintermyer, 812 A.2d at 487-88).
Applying the above principles to the case, the court
held that the Board did not capriciously disregard competent and relevant
evidence. It did not ignore Claimant’s “overwhelming evidence” without comment.
Rather, the Board discussed and explained its decision on all relevant issues.
Voluntary quit
v. discharge
The court rejected claimant’s argument that she was fired and
did not voluntarily quit her job. Whether a claimant’s separation
from employment constitutes a voluntary resignation is a question of law
subject to this Court’s plenary review and will be determined from the totality
of the facts surrounding the cessation of employment. Middletown Township v.
UCBR, 40 A.3d 217, 224 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). A voluntary termination requires
a finding “that the claimant had a conscious intention to leave employment.” Procyson
v. UCBR, 4 A.3d 1124, 1127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). A voluntary termination is
not limited to a formal or even an express resignation; it can be inferred from
the employee’s conduct. G.C. Murphy Co. v. UCBR, 471 A.2d 1295, 1297
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). An employee who leaves her employment without informing her
employer when or if she is planning to return may be held to have voluntarily
quit. Iaconelli v. UCBR, 892 A.2d 894, 896 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
The
court agreed with the Board that the evidence show that claimant exhibited a
conscious intention to leave her employment by failing to respond to employer’s
offer of a position within the time specified, noting that there was a need for
a prompt decision by claimant, and that the employer tried to get in touch with
claimant numerous time and that claimant failed to respond.
_____________________________
If the case is not recent, the link in this posting may not
work. In that event, search for the case by name and date on Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/,
where the opinions of all state appellate courts can be found.
