IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
                      Yolette Damas, : 
                                     : 
                          Petitioner : 
                                     : 
                                  v. : No. 1010 C.D. 2004 
                                     : 
           Unemployment Compensation : Submitted: October 1, 2004 
                    Board of Review, : 
                                     : 
                          Respondent : 

                BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge 
                        HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge 
                        HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge 

                        OPINION NOT REPORTED 
                        MEMORANDUM OPINION 
                        BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: November 4, 2004 

Yolette Damas (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee’s decision to deny benefits on the basis that Claimant committed an act of willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1. Claimant asserts on appeal that the Board committed an error of law in finding that her alteration of entries in a medical record, after her supervisor directed her not to make such changes herself, amounted to willful misconduct.

The facts as found by the Referee and adopted by the Board2 are not in dispute. Claimant was last employed by Saunders House (Employer) for ten years and four months as a Nursing Assistant in a full-time position. Her final day of employment was October 21, 2003. (Board’s Adopted Findings of Fact (FOF) ¶ 1.) While employed, Claimant’s duties included assisting patients and making entries in the Employer’s restorative nursing progress reports (reports) in regard to work she completed. These reports are important for two reasons: (1) they ensure that patients are receiving the treatment recommended by their physicians, and (2) they are used to calculate reimbursements from the state and federal governments.

Claimant was assigned to assist a particular patient who had a fractured hip. As part of this patient’s therapy, ambulation, i.e., walking, was recommended by her physician. In October 2003, Claimant made entries on the patient’s report indicating that she had walked the patient on certain days, when, in fact, she had not done so. These incorrect entries were discovered on October 14, 2003, when several supervisors attended a care plan meeting, during which the maximum data sheet (MDS) coordinator was present. The MDS coordinator referred to the report Claimant had completed wherein Claimant indicated that she had walked the patient. Another individual present at the meeting stated that this particular patient "doesn’t walk" and, therefore, did not walk on those days. (N.T. at 16.) Later the same day, the MDS coordinator spoke to Claimant. The entries Claimant had made for the patient in the report had already been entered on a separate report kept by Employer. When the MDS coordinator asked Claimant whether the patient walked, the Claimant admitted that the patient did not walk. The MDS coordinator noticed that Claimant made a gesture as though she were going to change the entries in the report. The MDS coordinator specifically told Claimant that she could not make any changes to the report and, to make such changes, she would need to get permission from another supervisor, Cathy Burns (Burns). (FOF ¶ 10; N.T. at 17, 38.)

Subsequently, the MDS coordinator and another supervisor became aware that, without Burns’ permission, Claimant altered the entries on the patient’s report to show that the patient did not ambulate on the particular days in question. While Claimant readily admits that she made changes to the report without the permission of Burns, she claims she attempted to see Burns, but Burns was in a meeting. (N.T. at 38.) Claimant contends that she made the change to the report and then wrote a note to Burns explaining her actions. (N.T. at 38.) Claimant further explained that she made the change "[b]ecause I couldn’t talk to Cathy [Burns] at the same time, I didn’t want nobody to go to her before me." (N.T. at 39.) Employer discharged Claimant because she had been insubordinate and because she had made a false entry in the patient’s record in violation of an Employer policy.3

Claimant sought unemployment benefits and the Unemployment Compensation Service Center denied them. Claimant then filed an appeal and, on February 20, 2004, the referee issued a decision upholding the denial of Claimant’s benefits on the basis that her alteration of the medical report, despite being told not to do so, constituted disqualifying willful misconduct.4 Claimant appealed to the Board, which summarily affirmed, and this appeal ensued.5

Section 402(e) of the Law provides, in pertinent part, that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work." The term "willful misconduct" has been defined as:

the wanton and wilful disregard of the employer's interest, ... the deliberate violation of rules, ... the disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from his employee, or ... negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design, or intentional and substantial disregard for the employer's interests or the employee's duties and obligations.

The referee found that Claimant failed to comply with the MDS coordinator’s direct order to obtain permission from Burns before the record was, in any way, altered or changed.6 (Referee Decision/Order, 11/15/2003.) Instead of getting permission from Burns, which she knew was required, Claimant made the changes to the record without it. We held in Hartman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 455 A.2d 756 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983), that the refusal of an employee to follow orders constitutes willful misconduct unless the employee has a good reason for his actions or the order is unreasonable.7 Disregarding clear and simple instructions without good cause constitutes willful misconduct. Id. Because there is substantial evidence to support the finding that Claimant failed to follow orders, Employer met its burden to establish willful misconduct. As such, the burden now shifts to Claimant to prove good cause.

Claimant contends she acted in good faith in changing the record because she thought "it would be okay to correct the record under the circumstances." (Cl. Br. at 10.) In her brief, Claimant argues that "she believed that despite what Ms. Marurizi [MDS coordinator] had stated to her, it was all right to correct the record as long as she left Ms. Burns a note." (Cl. Br. at 13.) Claimant admits that the MDS coordinator "stated something about not wanting the record changed because it was locked in her system. . . . whatever that means . . ." (Cl. Br. at 13.) Claimant contends that her act did not constitute "an intentional disregard of the employer’s interest or the employee’s duties or obligation as Ms. Damas had a right to believe that correcting [the] record was in the employer’s best interest," and, therefore, her conduct was not willful. (Cl. Br. at 13.)

The record supports the Referee’s determination, affirmed by the Board, that Claimant did not establish good cause for failing to follow the MDS coordinator’s direct order not to alter the patient’s record unless she received permission from Burns. See Hartman, 455 A.2d 756. Claimant did not provide any reason why she had to change the record before meeting with Burns as directed, nor did she explain why she could not wait until Burns was available. Claimant’s statement that she "didn’t want nobody to go to her before me" is not a reason justifying the actual alteration of the record; she could have left a note to Burns explaining her position without directly ignoring the MDS coordinator’s order. (N.T. at 39.) Claimant also did not provide any reason why she did not go back to the MDS Coordinator to inform her of Burns’ temporary unavailability and request authority to alter the record and to leave a note. See Bortz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 464 A.2d 609 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983)(reasoning that "informative communication with the employer may be a factor in sustaining the employee’s burden to establish good cause for a violation, and, in those situations, the employee, where feasible, must notify his employer of the reason for refusing to comply with rules, unless the reason for noncompliance is self-evident, or unless the employer is independently aware of the circumstances warranting noncompliance.") Claimant did not offer any reason to explain why she had to alter the record in direct violation of an order or why she could not wait to change the entry. Moreover, Claimant presented no evidence that she was under any time pressure to correct the patient’s record. Therefore, Claimant failed to establish good cause for her violation of the supervisor’s directive.

Having determined that Claimant did commit willful misconduct and that she did not demonstrate good cause for her admitted violation, we must affirm the order of the Board.

_________________________________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

O R D E R

NOW, November 4, 2004, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.

1. Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e).
2. The Board, in giving consideration to the entire record of the prior proceedings, including the testimony given at the Referee’s hearing, adopted the Referee’s findings and conclusions.
3. Under the Employer’s rules, of which Claimant was or should have been aware, any omission or falsification of information in a medical report would be considered a "critical offense," and could, itself, have resulted in termination." (FOF ¶ 14.)
4. We note that Employer does not contend that it was willful misconduct for Claimant to incorrectly indicate on the report that the patient had received certain treatment that she had not received.
5. Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board's adjudication is in violation of constitutional rights, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Nolan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 797 A.2d 1042, 1045 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
6. Claimant asserts that she has never had any problems in her employment before this incident concerning the way she did her job or with regard to any records that were kept. (N.T at 36.) However, we held in Affalter v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 397 A.2d 863 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979), that a single act may constitute "willful misconduct" even where claimant had a good work record.
7. In Hartman, the claimant, a janitor, was fired when he dry-buffed a floor which was contrary to his employer’s instruction that floors must be spray-buffed. We held that employee’s failure to follow his employer’s simple instructions was willful misconduct.