The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
I entirely agree with the result and with the tenor of the majority opinion. I cannot, however, embrace the “higher standard of care” discussion employed by the majority.
There are a number of older Commonwealth Court cases stating that police officers and prison guards are held to a higher standard of care. 1 Our Supreme Court, however, never adopted that standard. In fact, our Supreme Court recently rejected *321 a higher standard of care approach to evaluating potential willful misconduct of a nurse. Navickas v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 567 Pa. 298 , 787 A.2d 284 (2001). In doing so, the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Castille, stated that the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act) 2
sets forth a single governing standard of willful misconduct, one that does not draw distinctions based upon the type or nature of the employment involved. Moreover, far from authorizing ad hoc exceptions to, or modification of, its standard, the Act counsels against judicial constructions which would permit ad hoc exceptions to the willful misconduct standard.
Id. at 308 , 787 A.2d at 291 (emphasis in original).
Based on this explicit guidance, I do not believe that a “higher standard of care” discussion is appropriate in any willful misconduct analysis.
Judge LEAVITT joins in this concurring opinion.
. E.g., Williams v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 656 , 648 A.2d 1321 (1994); Lower Gwynedd Township v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 44 Pa. Cmwlth. 646, 404 A.2d 770 (1979).
. Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 751-914.