( Jones )
( Oklahoma County - Bryan C. Dixon )
Appellant appeals from the trial court's decision affirming the findings and order of the Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission Commission denying Appellant's claim for unemployment benefits. Applying the standard of review mandated by statute, we affirm.
On March 29, 1994, Appellant reported to work at her normal time. Appellee Examination Management Services, Inc. EMSI, is in the business of performing physical examinations of persons applying for insurance. Appellant's duties included performing examinations and proofreading others' reports. Appellant was assigned to perform an examination at 9:00 a.m., which her boss, Pat Janzen, described as a sensitive case. At about 8:45, Appellant came to Ms. Janzen's office and said that she felt she was developing a bladder infection, and requested permission to leave work to pick up a prescription her doctor had called in to a pharmacy. The pharmacy did not open until 9:00. Janzen told Appellant she could go after she had finished the 9:00 examination. Instead, Appellant asked another employee to cover the examination for her and left work without informing anyone. Janzen saw Appellant leave the office at 9:19. When Appellant returned, Janzen confronted her. Appellant told Janzen that she had taken her medicine and was feeling better. Janzen, upset that Appellant had violated her express direction to do the 9:00 examination, and suspicious that Appellant had not been entirely truthful with her about the rapidity of onset of Appellant's affliction and the equal rapidity of relief Appellant said she had experienced after taking the medicine, told Appellant that if she was too ill to do her examinations she should go home for the day. Appellant very shortly afterward seems to have compared Janzen's behavior to actions by the Gestapo. Janzen, agitated further by Appellant's comparison, pointed to the door of her small office and told Appellant to "get out."
At that point, Appellant left Janzen's office and went to her desk. Another employee close by testified that Appellant said she did not know whether she had been sent home for the day or fired, but Appellant picked up the personal items from her desk and left. Appellant did not return the next day or the day after. She did not call to find out whether she still had a job, and no one from EMSI called Appellant to find out whether she intended to return to work.
Following these events, Appellant applied for unemployment compensation. At first, the Commission determined that Appellant was not entitled to benefits because she had been fired for misconduct. Appellant sought review by appeal to the Commission's Appeals Tribunal. EMSI asserted Appellant had been guilty of misconduct, or that she had abandoned her job without good cause. The Appeals Tribunal found that Appellant "quit without good cause connected to her work" and modified the Commission's determination to reflect disqualification under