# Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 31, 2001 · 567 Pa. 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753503

## Case

- **Full name:** Marcene NAVICKAS, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 31, 2001
- **Citations:** 567 Pa. 298; 787 A.2d 284; 2001 Pa. LEXIS 2773
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Saylor, Newman, Nigeo
- **Cited by:** 74 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/9753503

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Unemployment Compensation Act sets forth a single governing standard of willful misconduct and rejecting idea that a higher standard may apply based upon the type or nature of the employment involved
- stating whether activity constitutes willful misconduct is a question of law subject to plenary review
- rejecting the application of a higher standard of care for 11 health care workers in a determination of whether a claimant’s conduct amounts to willful misconduct under the Law

## Opinion text

*310 NIGRO, Justice,
ConcuiTing.
I agree with the majority that the Commonwealth Court improperly set a higher standard of care for nurses than for other types of employees under § 402 of the Unemployment Compensation Law. However, although not applicable in the instant case, I believe that if an employee commits a series of errors, even if unintentional, those multiple errors may support the conclusion that the employee is guilty of willful misconduct under § 402. See Myers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 533 Pa. 373 , 625 A.2d 622, 630 (1993) (Zappala, J., dissenting).
ZAPPALA, Justice, joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753503. Public record. Not legal advice.