# Hertz-Penske Truck Leasing Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 1, 1996 · 546 Pa. 257

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752670

## Case

- **Full name:** HERTZ-PENSKE TRUCK LEASING COMPANY, Appellant, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (BOWERS), Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 1, 1996
- **Citations:** 546 Pa. 257; 684 A.2d 547; 1996 Pa. LEXIS 2120
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Zappala
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752670

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “an employer can suspend worker’s compensation benefits when an employee quits voluntarily” because the loss of earnings was caused by the voluntary decision to abandon the employment, not by the injury

## Opinion text

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I join the majority opinion insofar as it holds that the Commonwealth Court erred in applying the concept of willful *263 misconduct of a terminated employee to a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the existing record does not contain any specific findings as to why the Claimant suffered a loss of earnings. I find that the record in this case is sufficient to establish that the Claimant was terminated from his employment because he was unable to meet the standard of performance expected by his supervisors.
The referee made the following specific findings of fact regarding the Claimant’s unsatisfactory work performance in his decision dated July 7,1992.
2. The Claimant had been employed by defendant employer’s predecessor in business, Leaseway, as service manager. Hertz-Penske took over in November of 1986, and despite substantial re-training and direct instruction from his superiors the Claimant did not adjust to HertzPenske’s operating procedures adequately so as to meet their expectations of him. After a number of warnings did not bring the desired results, it was decided that the Claimant would have to be replaced.
3. The Claimant did not voluntarily resign his employment with the defendant employer on February 3, 1988. Rather, he was confronted by his superiors that day and given the option of either resigning or being fired on the spot for poor job performance; and at that time he signed a letter of resignation.
4. At the time he signed the letter of resignation on February 3, 1988, the Claimant had been told that if he resigned (rather than being fired) he would continue to receive full salary payments for at least a one (1) month period, would receive his accrued vacation time, would continue to be covered for hospitalization, and would be able to collect unemployment compensation. Claimant mistakenly, although in good faith, also believed that he would forfeit his retirement benefits if he was fired rather than resigning.
*264 Based upon the referee’s findings, I would conclude that the Claimant’s loss of earning power was not attributable to his physical injury but to his poor performance on the job. I would hold that the Claimant’s benefits should have been suspended as of March 31, 1988. Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to remand this matter to the workers’ compensation judge for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752670. Public record. Not legal advice.