DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS MC
MC-30 (01/11)
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Misconduct/MC 85.05
DOCKET/DATE Winklmeier v. Board of Review, 450 N.E. 2d 353 (1983)
AUTHORITY Section 602A of the Act
TITLE Connected with Work
SUBTITLE General
CROSS-REFERENCE MC 5.05, Def. of Misconduct; MS 95.4, Constr. of Statutes
Over a two-year period, the claimant submitted 13 medical insurance claims to his employer. Each claim was for medical treatment
for his wife. On each claim he knowingly and falsely stated that his wife was unemployed and had no insurance of her own. His
practice of filing false claims could result in higher insurance costs to his employer.
HELD: Section 602A provides that misconduct must be connected with work. However, misconduct need not have a direct
connection with work. Instead, the connection with work is determined in light of the specific facts of each case.
Here, the claimant's behavior arose out of duties and obligations owed his employer, was directed at his employer's insurer, and
could have resulted in a substantial financial loss to his employer.
This was misconduct connected with work.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Misconduct/MC 85.05
DOCKET/DATE ABR-89-2827/9-12-89
AUTHORITY Section 602A of the Act
TITLE Connected with Work
SUBTITLE Alcohol Rehabilitation
CROSS-REFERENCE MC 270.05, Intoxication and Use of Intoxicants
In 1986, the claimant was hospitalized for alcoholism. As a condition of her continued employment, she was required to obtain
follow-up treatment, and she agreed that, for a period of 1 year, she would attend alcoholism counselling sessions.
For 1 year, the claimant attended the counselling sessions. She continued to attend counselling sessions well into a second year.
She herself paid for these sessions. Toward the end of the second year, she began missing meetings with her counselor. This was
partly because of her schedule: counseling plus work, including overtime, ran from 1 p.m. until 2 a.m. Also, she did not have
sufficient funds to continue to pay for the sessions.
From the time the claimant began her counselling sessions, she committed no work infractions - except that the employer desired
that she continue participating in the rehabilitation program. In January, 1989, because she failed to keep up her attendance in the
program; she was discharged.
HELD: Section 602A of the Act requires that misconduct be connected with work.
Generally, if a worker has a substance abuse problem, causing difficulties on the job or absences from work, a requirement that she
enroll in a rehabilitation program (in lieu of being discharged outright) is connected with the work and is reasonable. Generally,
the worker's failure to enroll in or continue to attend such a program will constitute misconduct.
However, in the instant case, the relationship between continuing rehabilitation and work was tenuous. The original incident
occurred in 1986. The claimant fulfilled her obligation to attend counselling for 1 year. For that year, and until her discharge in
1989, she committed no infractions that caused difficulties on the job or absences from work.
The counselling sessions that continued after 1 year, being off-duty, personally financed, and not warranted by behavior at work,
were not connected with work; therefore, missing them could not constitute misconduct.
The claimant was allowed benefits without disqualification under Section 602A.
