ÿWPCª( …# V %a 0 (gf‘w@™4Ùí 0lü 0Dh UF¬ 0Dò h†6 0J¼ 0T 0^Z 0h¸ 0r 0|’ 0† 0” 1u$U,™ 0dÅ B) D3FU,yU6¥ 0@ÛB)DCD AM‡U*Ô$þf"B)$D3Ma€½”çQ8/R/v~°vÓ. B*& D3+& iD^& i¢& 0DÁ& AO'ÆT' 0D( D/^( B(˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 X($¡¡ä z { | I} ~ D € I ‚ Ó€Œ DÒ xxxxxx3|xŒ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular6 ÿÿ$Triangleððà0 àð? @ @  2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d))))'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌAugust€30,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó% Line 8 d4444'ÿÿddTABLE_A ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔ€€Occidental€required€their€employees€to€have€an€absentee€rate€of€noÏmore€than€two€percent€per€year.€€When€calculating€an€employee's€absentee€rate,ÏOccidental€included€unauthorized€absences,€but€did€not€include€authorized€orÏdisciplinary€absences.Ì ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔ€€This€section€provides€that€the€Department€may€deny€benefits€to€aÏclaimant€if€it€finds€the€claimant€ð ðhas€been€discharged€from€such€claimant'sÏmost€recent€work€for€misconduct€connected€with€such€claimant's€work€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏòòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2)€(1991€&€Supp.€1995).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔ€€Although€some€courts€apply€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€only€to€legalÏissues,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€applied€the€doctrine€to€both€legal€andÏfactual€conclusions.€€òòò òSee€Carson€v.€Nashville€Bank€&€Trust€Co.óóó ó,€204ÏTenn.€396,€401,€321€S.W.2d€798,€801€(Tenn.€1959);€5€òòAm.€Jur.€2d€óóòòAppellateÏReviewóó€ðð€609€(1995).Ì %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€,ôÔIn€òòò òArmstrongóóó ó,€the€court€noted€that€the€appropriateness€of€theÏòòò òBoyntonóóó ó€definition€to€Tennessee€cases€had€been€questioned€becauseÏTennessee's€statutes€differentiated€between€gross€and€simple€misconduct.€Ïòòò òArmstrongóóó ó,€725€S.W.2d€at€956.€€Nevertheless,€the€court€determined€that€itÏcould€continue€to€use€the€òòò òBoynton€óóó óstandards€for€simple€misconduct€cases.€Ïòòò òId.óóó ó€€In€1987,€the€General€Assembly€amended€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ50„7„303(a)(2)€and€eliminated€the€distinction€between€simple€and€grossÏmisconduct.€€1987€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€ch.€368.€€Thus,€we€are€of€the€opinion€thatÏthe€òòò òBoyntonóóó ó€standard€is€still€appropriate€under€the€unemploymentÏcompensation€statutes€as€they€exist€today.€€òòò òSee€Lyons€v.€Metal€Bldg.ÏProds.,€Inc.óóó ó,€No.€02A01„9404„CH„00082,€1994€WL€669526,€at€*3€(Tenn.€App.Ï1994).Ì %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€,ôÔThe€Supreme€Court€discussed€the€three€days€plaintiff€was€late€inÏOctober.€€The€Court€did€not,€however,€make€any€findings€of€fact€in€regard€toÏthe€days.€€Instead,€the€Court€noted€that€a€competent€attorney€would€haveÏobjected€to€the€hearsay€evidence€used€by€defendants€to€prove€that€plaintiffÏwas€late€on€two€of€the€days.€€òòò òSimmonsóóó ó,€791€S.W.2d€at€26.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò&ÿÿ0 d dPPPP'þÿdxdY)P:óÿ20 ÿÿ6ûb$Triangleððà0 à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÓ&€++X„d&ÓÑ#€++Xd#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¼xXXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Ó›CORNELIA€SIMMONS,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)à à01„A„01„9602„CH„00069Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMaury€County€No.̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€02/;+'h|C` ç `€€Lß›MARGARET€CULPEPPER,€in€her€à àà à)à à94„038Ìcapacity€as€Commissioner€of€the€à à)ÌTennessee€Department€of€Employmentà à)ÌSecurity;€and€OCCIDENTAL€CHEMICAL€à à)ÌCORPORATION,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌÔ€,îÔà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€MAURY€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€COLUMBIA,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÔ€,XÔÌÌÌDAVID€KOZLOWSKIÌLegal€Services€of€SouthÌà àCentral€Tennessee,€Inc.Ì104€West€7th€StreetÌP.O.€Box€1256ÌColumbia,€Tennessee€38402„1256Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌROBERT€W.€STACKÌPursuant€to€Rule€7,€Article€10.03ÌRules€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€TennesseeÌ404€James€Robertson€Parkway,€Suite€1510ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0499ÌÌJENNIFER€H.€SMALLÌDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌ404€James€Robertson€Parkway,€Suite€1510ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0499Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEE€Ìà àMARGARET€CULPEPPER,€COMMISSIONER€OF€THE€Ìà àTENNESSEE€DEPARTMENT€OF€EMPLOYEE€SECURITYÌÌN.€HOUSTON€PARKSÌTrabue,€Sturdivant€&€DeWittÌ100€West€Sixth€StreetÌP.O.€Box€1004ÌColumbia,€Tennessee€38402Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌà àOCCIDENTAL€CHEMICAL€CORPORATIONÌÌÌà@ àÔ€,¼ÔAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÔ€,XÔÇÓÓà@ àÔ€,°ÔòòOÔ€,¼ÔPINIONÔ€,XÔà@ àóóÌà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€plaintiff/appellant,€Cornelia€Simmons,Ïfrom€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€which€upheld€the€decisionÏof€defendant/appellee,€Tennessee€Department€of€Employment€SecurityÏ(ð ðthe€Departmentðð),€to€deny€plaintiff€unemployment€benefits.ÌÌò òI.à àFactual€Historyó óÌÌà àDefendant/appellee,€Occidental€Chemical€CorporationÏ(ð ðOccidentalðð),€hired€plaintiff€on€16€February€1987.€€OccidentalÏinformed€plaintiff€when€they€hired€her€that€they€expectedÏemployees€to€have€an€absentee€rate€of€no€more€that€two€percent€aÏyear.€€While€employed€with€Occidental,€plaintiff€received€severalÏwarnings€concerning€her€job€performance,€her€job„related€injuries,Ïand€her€absentee€rate.€€On€28€October€1987,€Occidental€terminatedÏplaintiff.€€Richard€R.€Karcher,€Occidental's€human€resourceÏmanager€at€the€time€of€plaintiff's€employment,€testified€thatÏOccidental€terminated€plaintiff€based€on€the€totality€of€herÏrecord.ÌÌà àWhile€working€at€Occidental,€plaintiff€performed€two€jobs.€ÏThe€first€was€in€the€metal€yard€where€plaintiff€broke€metal€with€aÏsledge€hammer€and€loaded€it€into€pans.€€Occidental€expectedÏemployees€to€fill€a€certain€number€of€pans€per€day.€€Plaintiff'sÏsecond€job€title€was€ð ðtapper€helper.ðð€€Plaintiff€described€aÍtapper€helper€as€one€who€ð ðhelps€set€up€for€a€metal€tap€and€betweenÏsetting€up€for€a€metal€taps,€[does]€slag€taps.€.€.€.ðð€€ÌÌà àDuring€her€eight€months€on€the€job,€three€differentÏinvestigators€filled€out€a€total€of€five€accident€investigationÏreports€involving€injuries€received€by€plaintiff.€€On€2€MarchÏ1987,€the€investigator€wrote:€ð ðEmployee€picked€up€a€piece€of€metalÏto€put€into€metal€pan,€the€metal€slipped€from€her€left€hand€andÏscratched€her€left€arm.ðð€€Fourteen€days€later,€anotherÏinvestigator€wrote:€€ð ðEmployee€was€standing€in€hallway€of€#1€fceÏwhen€nodules€fell€from€Burden€Bin€hitting€employee€on€Back€andÏHands.ðð€€The€third€investigator€filled€out€two€reports€on€3€MayÏ1987.€€In€the€first,€he€wrote:€ð ð[S]he€rubbed€up€against€a€feedÏchute€casting,€getting€acid€on€her€shirt.€€At€about€12:N,€sheÏcalled€the€board€room€and€said€there€was€something€hot€on€herÏshirt.ðð€€In€the€second,€he€wrote:€€ð ð[S]he€started€to€climb€downÏand€slipped€and€fell€on€the€roof.€€No€one€had€seen€her€fall.ðð€ÏLastly,€on€11€May€1987,€Mack€Whiteside€filled€out€an€accidentÏreport€because€plaintiff€ð ðwas€pitching€metal€into€metal€pan,€whenÏher€middle€right€finger€struck€[the]€pan.ðð€€In€two€of€theseÏreports,€plaintiff€is€to€some€extent€blamed€for€the€accident.€€InÏthe€2€March€report,€the€investigator€stated:€ð ðEmployee€said€herÏgloves€were€loose€and€caused€metal€to€slipðð€and€checked€ð ðLack€ofÏKnowledge€or€Skillðð€under€a€section€of€the€report.€€In€the€11€MayÏaccident€report,€the€investigator€concluded€that€plaintiff€ð ðwasÏstanding€too€close€to€[the]€pan,€[f]ailure€to€watch€for€[the]Ípan.ððÌÌà àOccidental€considered€plaintiff€a€probationary€employee€untilÏ17€May€1996.€€While€on€probation,€plaintiff€received€weeklyÏevaluations€from€her€supervisors.€€Of€the€65€scores€receivedÏduring€the€evaluation€period,€plaintiff's€supervisors€rated€her€asÏgood€44.62€percent€of€the€time,€as€marginal€38.46€percent€of€theÏtime,€and€as€unsatisfactory€16.92€percent€of€the€time.€€OccidentalÏclaimed€that€it€would€not€retain€a€probationary€employee€withÏthese€scores,€but€it€had€made€an€exception€in€plaintiff's€case€inÏorder€to€salvage€a€female€employee.ÌÌà àA€third€reason€for€plaintiff's€termination€was€her€attendanceÏrecord.€€During€her€eight€months€on€the€job,€plaintiff€hadÏmultiple€absences.€€The€following€chart€lists€the€dates€on€whichÏshe€was€absent€or€tardy€and€provides€a€brief€explanation€of€theÏreasons€given€for€the€absences.ÌÓÓÔ*ƒ3546 dÔÔ,°ddÔÔ,2ddÔÔ+  ÔÐ  „„ÐÌÓ  Ó2/27/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€7€hours€because€of€a€fever.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó3/2/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€1€hour€because€of€a€work„relatedÏinjury.€(authorized)Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó4/3/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€1€day€because€of€a€sinus€infection.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó4/14/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€1€day€because€of€an€at„home€injury.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó5/3/89€&Ï5/4/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€2€days€because€of€a€work„relatedÏinjury.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó5/15/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€half€an€hour€because€of€personalÏbusiness.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó5/23/89„5/26/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€4€days€because€of€a€bronchialÏinfection.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó5/30/89„Ï6/15/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€11€days€due€to€a€work„related€injury.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó6/16/89„Ï6/18/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€3€days€due€to€a€disciplinaryÏsuspension.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó6/19/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€2€hours.€(authorized)Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó7/8/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€5.5€hours.€(authorized)Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó8/3/89„Ï8/7/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€5€days€due€to€a€disciplinaryÏsuspension.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó8/19/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓOccidental€granted€plaintiff€permission€to€miss€oneÏday€to€tend€to€her€personal€business.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó8/21/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓOccidental€granted€plaintiff€permission€to€miss€oneÏday€to€tend€to€her€personal€business.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó8/25/90Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€1€day€because€she€slept€late.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó9/3/89„Ï9/15/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€missed€10€days€due€to€a€disciplinaryÏsuspension.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó10/19/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€was€15€minutes€late.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó10/22/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€was€15€minutes€late.Ð  „„ÐÓ  Ó10/23/89Ð  „„ÐÓ  ÓPlaintiff€was€3.5€hours€late€because€of€car€trouble.Ð „„ÐÌÓÓThe€information€found€in€this€chart€came€from€Occidental'sÏabsentee€report€and€other€evidence€in€the€record.€€Although€theÏabsentee€report€lists€some€absences€as€authorized€or€unauthorized,× ƒ7 ××  ×Ïthe€report€fails€to€classify€each€absence.€€Thus,€we€haveÏattempted€to€classify€the€absences€based€on€the€amount€of€timeÏmissed€and€the€reason€for€the€absence.€€All€totaled,€plaintiff€wasÏeither€absent€or€tardy€48€days.€€She€missed€portions€of€5€days€andÏwas€tardy€3€days.€€She€missed€the€remaining€40€days€entirely.€€OfÏthese€40€days,€plaintiff€missed€18€for€disciplinary€reasons;€9Ïbecause€of€personal€business,€sickness,€or€oversleeping;€and€13Íbecause€of€work„related€injuries.ÌÌà àAs€previously€stated,€plaintiff€received€various€written€andÏoral€warnings.€€There€are€five€written€warnings€in€the€record.€€OnÏ29€May€1987,€plaintiff€received€two€warnings.€€The€first€warnedÏthat€her€job€performance€was€poor€and€that€future€poor€performanceÏcould€result€in€disciplinary€action€including€discharge.€€TheÏsecond€warning€stated€that€plaintiff€had€excessive€absences€andÏthat€Occidental€would€take€disciplinary€action€if€plaintiff'sÏattendance€did€not€improve.€€The€third€warning€came€on€16€JuneÏ1987.€€Occidental€warned€plaintiff€that€her€job€performance€wasÏpoor,€discussed€her€higher€than€average€rate€of€on„the„job€injury,Ïand€placed€her€on€a€three€day€suspension.€€On€3€August€1987,ÏOccidental€warned€plaintiff€that€her€production€in€the€metal€yardÏwas€less€than€other€employees€and€placed€her€on€a€seven€dayÏsuspension.€€The€final€warning€came€a€month€later.€€OccidentalÏrecognized€that€plaintiff's€production€had€improved,€butÏmaintained€that€it€was€still€below€that€of€other€employees.€ÏMoreover,€Occidental€complained€of€plaintiff's€absentee€rate.€ÏFinally,€the€warning€placed€plaintiff€on€a€two€week€suspension€andÏstated€that€Occidental€would€terminate€plaintiff€if€her€jobÏperformance€did€not€improve.ÌÌà àThere€is€evidence€of€three€oral€warnings€or€discussions.€ÏDuring€the€first€discussion€the€participants€discussed€plaintiffsÏperformance,€her€absentee€rate,€and€her€complaints€regardingÍseveral€male€employees.€€Five€days€later,€plaintiff's€supervisorÏreviewed€plaintiff's€weekly€evaluations€with€her.€€Finally,€on€1ÏSeptember€1987,€there€was€some€discussion€regarding€plaintiff'sÏattendance€record€and€her€production.€€Richard€R.€Karcher€toldÏplaintiff€that€Occidental€was€going€to€suspend€her€for€two€weeksÏand€that€this€was€her€final€chance.ÌÌò òII.à àPROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óÌÌà àAfter€being€terminated,€plaintiff€applied€for€unemploymentÏbenefits.€€The€Department€denied€plaintiff's€application€becauseÏit€found€she€was€guilty€of€misconduct€based€on€her€absentee€rate,Ïher€job€performance,€and€her€safety€record.€€Plaintiff€filed€anÏadministrative€appeal.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€Appeals€TribunalÏaffirmed€the€denial,€and€the€Board€of€Review€(ð ðthe€Boardðð)Ïconcurred.€€Plaintiff€appealed€the€case€to€the€chancery€court,€theÏcourt€of€appeals,€and€the€œSupreme›€œCourt.›€€The€œSupreme›€œCourt›Ïconcluded€that€the€Department€had€not€properly€notified€plaintiffÏof€her€right€to€counsel.€€Thus,€the€œSupreme›€œCourt›€remanded€theÏcase€for€a€new€hearing.ÌÌà àOn€remand,€the€Board€held€a€de€novo€hearing€to€determineÏwhether€plaintiff's€absentee,€work€performance,€and€safety€recordsÏevidenced€misconduct.€€On€16€November€1993,€the€Board€issued€itsÏdecision€denying€plaintiff€benefits€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÍAnnotated€section€50„7„303(a)(2).× ƒ8 ××  ×€€In€its€decision,€the€Board€madeÏthe€following€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€claimant€was€discharged€for€poor€job€performance,Ïhaving€excessive€and€careless€accidents€and€excessiveÏabsenteeism.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€The€claimant€alternated€between€two€jobs€inÏthe€plant,€a€yard€laborer€and€tapper€helper.€€Both€ofÏthese€jobs€were€physically€demanding,€particularly€theÏyard€laborer€job.€.€.€.€The€claimant€was€warned€andÏdisciplined€at€various€times€during€her€employment€forÏfailure€to€perform€satisfactorily€on€both€of€these€jobs.€ÏHowever,€we€find€that€the€claimant€made€a€reasonableÏeffort€to€perform€these€jobs,€but€lacked€the€wherewithalÏto€perform€them€up€to€the€employer's€standards.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€claimant€was€also€disciplined€for€havingÏexcessive€and/or€careless€accidents.€.€.€.€However,€theÏevidence€is€not€sufficient€for€us€to€find€as€fact€thatÏthe€claimant€was€at€fault€in€any€of€these€accidents.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àCONCLUSIONS€OF€LAW:€The€Board€of€Review€holds€that€theÏclaimant€is€disqualified€for€benefits€under€TCA€50„7„303(a)(2)€because€she€was€discharged€for€misconductÏconnected€with€work.€.€.€.€In€our€opinion,€theÏclaimant's€conduct€was€careless€or€negligent€to€theÏextent€that€it€demonstrated€a€substantial€disregard€ofÏher€obligations.€€The€claimant€had€numerous€problemsÏduring€her€employment€with€Occidental€Chemical,€forÏwhich€she€was€repeatedly€warned€and€otherwiseÏdisciplined.€€Significant€among€these€problems€was€herÏrate€of€absenteeism.ÌÌÓÓThe€Board€later€denied€plaintiff's€request€for€a€rehearing.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€filed€a€complaint€in€the€chancery€court€and€movedÏfor€a€judgment€on€the€pleadings.€€On€30€November€1995,€theÍchancery€court€entered€an€order€holding€that€the€record€before€theÏBoard€contained€substantial€and€material€evidence€of€plaintiff'sÏpattern€of€unsatisfactory€job€performance,€excessive€absenteeism,Ïand€repeated€tardiness.€€Thereafter,€plaintiff€filed€her€notice€ofÏappeal.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€plaintiff€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏaffirming€the€decision€of€the€Board.€€In€support€of€theirÏcontention,€she€makes€the€following€two€arguments:ÌÓÓà8 àI.à àThe€chancery€court€erred€in€affirming€the€decisionÏof€the€Board€of€Review€because€the€Supreme€Court€ofÏTennessee€has€already€determined€that€Cornelia€SimmonsÏwas€not€guilty€of€misconduct€based€upon€allegations€ofÏabsenteeism.ÌÌà8 àII.à àThis€administrative€record€fails€to€containÏsubstantial€and€material€evidence€to€support€theÏDepartment's€legal€conclusion€that€Cornelia€Simmons€wasÏguilty€of€misconduct€because€of€excessiveÏabsenteeism/tardiness.ÌÌÓÓWe€address€each€argument€separately.ÌÌò òIII.à àTHE€EFFECT€OF€THE€SUPREME€COURT'S€DECISIONó óÌÌà àPlaintiff€argues€that€the€œSupreme›€œCourt›€determined€thatÏplaintiff's€absentee€rate€did€not€constitute€misconduct.€ÏSpecifically,€plaintiff€relies€on€the€following€language€in€theÏœSupreme›€œCourt's›€opinion:ÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€finding€that€Plaintiff€was€guilty€of€misconduct,Ïthe€Appeals€Tribunal€focused€on€absenteeism€andÏtardiness.€.€.€.€The€key€element€appears€to€be€theÏtardiness,€along€with€the€excessive€absenteeism.€.€.€.ÏUnexcused€and€unjustified€absenteeism€can€be€a€basis€forÍa€finding€of€misconduct.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€record,€however,€shows€that€most€of€Plaintiff'sÏabsences€were€for€illnesses€and€job„related€injuries.€ÏAn€employee€can€be€fired€for€excessive€absenteeism€dueÏto€illness€and€injuries.€€Absences€due€to€illness€andÏjob€injuries,€however,€do€not€constitute€misconductÏunder€the€Employment€Security€Law.€€Other€than€illnessÏand€injury€related€absences,€Plaintiff€missed€work€onÏthe€days€she€was€suspended,€and€she€took€time€off€withÏpermission€in€August€for€personal€reasons.€€The€only€dayÏplaintiff€was€absent€without€cause€œwas€when€sheÏoverslept€on€August€25.ÌÌÓÓòòò òSimmons€v.€Traughberóóó ó,€791€S.W.2d€21,€26€(Tenn.€1990)€(citationsÏomitted).€€Plaintiff€claims€that€these€finding€have€become€the€lawÏof€the€case€and€are€not€subject€to€further€review€by€the€Board€orÏby€this€court.€€Defendants€counter€that€the€statement€are€dictaÏand€that€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€does€not€apply€to€dicta.ÌÌà àð ðThe€doctrine€of€the€law€of€the€case€generally€prohibitsÏreconsideration€of€issues€which€have€been€decided€in€a€priorÏappeal€in€the€same€case€.€.€.€.ðð€€òò5€Am.€Jur.€2dóó€òòAppellate€ReviewóóÏðð605€(1995).€€The€doctrine€applies€when€the€facts€of€the€case€haveÏgone€unchanged.€€òòò òBarnes€v.€Walkeróóó ó,€191€Tenn.€364,€374,€234ÏS.W.2d€648,€652€(1950).€€Courts€apply€the€doctrine€ð ðto€avoidÏindefinite€relitigation€of€the€same€issue,€to€obtain€consistentÏresults€in€the€same€litigation,€to€afford€one€opportunity€forÏargument€and€decision€of€the€matter€at€issue,€and€to€assure€theÏobedience€of€lower€courts€to€the€decisions€of€appellate€courts.ðð€Ïòò5€Am.€Jur.€2dóó€òòAppellate€Reviewóó€ðð605€(1995).€€ÌÌà àThe€law€of€the€case€doctrine€does€not€apply€to€mere€dictum.€Íòòò òSchoen€v.€J.C.€Bradford€&€Co.ó óóó,€667€S.W.2d€97,€101€(Tenn.€App.Ï1984);€òòò òsee€Johnson€Bank€v.€Bryant,€Price,€Brandt,€JordanÏand€Williamsóóó ó,€744€S.W.2d€581,€584€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€SometimeÏago,€the€Supreme€Court€discussed€the€meaning€of€the€term€dictum.€ÏIt€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà àCourts€sometimes€go€beyond€the€point€necessary€forÏa€decision€in€a€lawsuit€and€make€expressions€on€certainÏthings€there€involved€which€are€not€necessary€for€aÏdetermination€of€the€lawsuit.€€Such€statements€by€aÏcourt€are€known€as€dictum.€€The€term€'dictum'€is€anÏabbreviation€of€'obiter€dictum'€which€means€generally€aÏremark€or€opinion€uttered€by€the€way.€€Obviously€theÏvery€definition€of€the€term€shows€that€it€has€no€bearingÏon€the€direct€route€or€decision€of€the€case€but€is€madeÏaside€or€on€the€way€and€is,€therefore,€not€a€controllingÏstatement€to€courts€when€the€question€rises€again€thatÏhas€been€commented€on€by€way€of€dictum.ÌÌÓÓòòò òStaten€v.€Stateóóó ó,€191€Tenn.€157,€159„60,€232€S.W.2d€18,€19,Ï(1950).€€Thus,€the€issue€before€this€court€becomes€whether€theÏSupreme€Court's€statements€regarding€plaintiff's€absentee€rateÏwere€dictum.ÌÌà àThe€issue€before€the€Supreme€Court€was€whether€the€Board€hadÏviolated€plaintiff's€right€to€a€fair€hearing€by€failing€to€giveÏher€sufficient€notice€of€her€right€to€counsel.€òòò ò€Simmonsóóó ó,€791ÏS.W.2d€at€22.€€The€Court€found€that€the€notice€was€insufficientÏbecause€it€failed€to€inform€plaintiff€of€the€possible€availabilityÏof€free€or€low„cost€representation.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€24.€€The€Court€thenÏrecognized€that€the€law€would€not€entitle€plaintiff€to€a€newÏhearing€unless€the€lack€of€counsel€prejudiced€plaintiff's€case.€Ïòòò òId.€óóó óat€25.ÌÌà àIt€was€during€its€discussion€of€prejudice€that€the€CourtÏaddressed€the€facts€surrounding€plaintiff's€absentee€rate.€€TheÏCourt€discussed€the€reasons€for€plaintiff's€absences€and€the€factÏthat€the€evidence€of€the€days€she€was€tardy€was€hearsay.€€TheÏCourt€then€concluded€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àA€competent€attorney,€through€efficient€cross„examination€and€introduction€of€medical€records,€mayÏhave€been€able€to€show€that€Plaintiff€was€absent€soÏfrequently€because€of€injuries€and€poor€health.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€The€proof€that€Plaintiff€was€tardy€on€theÏ19th€and€22nd,€however,€was€hearsay.€€A€witness€for€theÏemployer€testified€that€a€guard€told€him€that€PlaintiffÏhad€arrived€at€work€late€those€days.€€The€guard€was€notÏpresent€and€did€not€testify€at€the€hearing.€€A€competentÏattorney€would€have€objected€to€this€hearsay€testimony.ÌÌòòò òÓÓId.óóó ó€at€26.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€it€was€necessary€for€theÏCourt€to€analyze€the€factual€evidence€and€the€law€to€determineÏwhether€the€lack€of€counsel€prejudiced€plaintiff's€case.€€Thus,Ïthe€factual€findings€of€the€Court€and€its€statements€of€the€lawÏwere€not€dicta€and€became€the€law€of€the€case.× ƒ9 ××  ×ÌÌà àPlaintiff€did€not€argue,€however,€that€the€factual€findingsÏand€the€law€as€stated€by€the€Court€became€the€law€of€the€case.€ÏInstead,€plaintiff€argued€that€the€Court€concluded€that€herÏattendance€record€constituted€misconduct€as€a€matter€of€law€andÍthat€this€conclusion€became€the€law€of€the€case.€€We€can€not€agreeÏwith€plaintiff's€argument.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€CourtÏset€forth€the€law€and€the€facts€without€making€any€legalÏconclusion.€€The€Court€simply€concluded€that€a€competent€attorneyÏmay€have€been€able€to€make€the€necessary€arguments.€€Thus,€whileÏthe€statements€of€the€law€and€the€factual€findings€became€the€lawÏof€the€case,€the€legal€conclusion€that€plaintiff€was€terminatedÏdue€to€her€misconduct€did€not.ÌÌò òIV.à àWEIGHT€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÌÌà àò òA.à àSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óÌÌà àThis€court€may€reverse,€remand,€or€modify€the€decision€of€theÏboard€if€the€findings,€inferences,€conclusions,€or€decisions€areÏð ð[u]nsupported€by€evidence€which€is€both€substantial€and€materialÏin€the€light€of€the€entire€record.ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€50„7„304(I)(2)(E)(1991);€òòò òaccord€Armstrong€v.€Neelóóó ó,€725€S.W.2d€953,Ï955€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€When€determining€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence,€this€court€must€ð ðtake€into€account€whatever€in€theÏrecord€fairly€detracts€from€its€weight,€but€[it]€shall€notÏsubstitute€[its]€judgment€for€that€of€the€board€of€review€as€toÏthe€weight€of€the€evidence€on€questions€of€fact.ðð€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ððÏ50„7„304(I)(3).€€Thus,€our€review€in€this€case€involves€aÏdetermination€of€whether€there€is€substantial€and€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€Board's€legal€conclusion€that€plaintiff'sÍactions€constituted€misconduct.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏBoard's€conclusion€is€properly€supported.€ÌÌà àò òB.à àLAW€OF€MISCONDUCTó óÌÌà àThe€General€Assembly€has€not€seen€fit€to€provide€a€definitionÏof€the€term€misconduct€as€it€is€used€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€50„7„303(a)(2).€€Nevertheless,€Tennessee's€case€lawÏprovides€guidance€as€to€this€issue.€€This€court€is€to€construeÏunemployment€compensation€statutes€liberally.€€òòò òWeaver€v.ÏWallaceóóó ó,€565€S.W.2d€867,€869€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€theÏdisqualification€from€benefits€based€on€misconduct€connected€withÏemployment€is€penal€in€nature,€and€courts€must€construe€theÏdisqualification€liberally€in€favor€of€the€employee.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€ÌÌà àFrom€the€law€of€the€case,€we€know€that€ð ð[a]n€employee€can€beÏfired€for€excessive€absenteeism€due€to€illnesses€and€injuries,ððÏbut€that€ð ð[a]bsences€due€to€illness€and€job€injuries€.€.€.€do€notÏconstitute€misconduct€under€the€Employment€Security€Law.ðð€Ïòòò òSimmonsóóó ó,€791€S.W.2d€at€26.€€Also,€Tennessee's€courts€have€oftenÏheld€that€an€essential€element€of€misconduct€is€a€ð ðbreach€of€dutyÏowed€to€the€employer,€as€distinguished€from€society€in€general.ðð€Ïòòò òWeaveróóó ó,€565€S.W.2d€at€870.€€In€a€detailed€opinion€of€this€court,Ïwe€adopted€the€following€standard€regulating€the€determination€ofÏmisconduct:ÌÓÓà8 àconduct€evincing€such€willful€and€wanton€disregard€of€anÍemployer's€interests€as€is€found€in€deliberateÏviolations€or€disregard€of€standards€of€behavior€whichÏthe€employer€has€the€right€to€expect€of€his€employee,€orÏin€carelessness€or€negligence€of€such€degree€orÏrecurrence€as€to€manifest€equal€culpability,€wrongfulÏintent€or€evil€design,€or€to€show€an€intentional€andÏsubstantial€disregard€of€the€employer's€interests€or€ofÏthe€employee's€duties€and€obligations€to€the€employer.€ÏOn€the€other€hand€mere€inefficiency,€unsatisfactoryÏconduct,€failure€in€good€performance€as€the€result€ofÏinability€or€incapacity,€inadvertences›€or€ordinaryÏnegligence€in€isolated€instances,€or€good€faith€errorsÏin€judgment€or€discretion€are€not€to€be€deemedÏð ðmisconductðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€statute.ÌÌÓÓòòò òArmstrongóóó ó,€725€S.W.2d€at€956€(quoting€òòò òBoynton€Cab€Co.€v.ÏNeubeckóóó ó,€237€Wis.€249,€296€N.W.€636,€640€(1941)).× ƒ: ××  ×€€ÌÌà àTurning€to€the€facts,€the€findings€of€the€Board€and€of€theÏœSupreme›€œCourt›€are€similar.€€The€law€of€the€case,€as€established€inÏthe€œSupreme›€œCourt's›€decision,€is€as€follows:€1)plaintiff€missedÏone€day,€August€25th,€without€cause;€2)€plaintiff€took€time€off€inÏAugust€with€permission€for€personal€reasons;€and€3)€all€otherÏabsences€were€due€to€illness,€injury,€and€suspensions.€€The€BoardÏfound€that€ð ð[m]any€of€her€absences€were€not€her€fault,€but€someÏwere.ðð€€Specifically,€the€Board€discussed€plaintiff's€warnings€andÍdisciplinary€record,€the€August€25th€absence,€and€the€three€daysÏplaintiff€was€late€for€work€in€October.œ× ƒ; ××  ×›€€ÌÌà àPlaintiff€was€absent€a€total€of€45€days€and€was€tardy€a€totalÏof€3€days.€€Of€the€45€days,€plaintiff€missed€time€on€21€daysÏbecause€of€illness€or€work„related€injuries.€€In€addition,€sheÏmissed€18€of€the€45€days€due€to€Occidental's€use€of€disciplinaryÏsuspensions.€€ÌÌà àNot€including€her€illnesses,€injuries,€and€suspensions,Ïplaintiff€was€absent€6€days.€€Of€the€6€absences,€2€were€authorizedÏand€2€were€with€permission.€€The€remaining€2€absences€include€15ÏMay.€€On€that€day,€plaintiff€missed€one„half€hour€of€work€forÏpersonal€business.€€The€record€is€not€clear€whether€plaintiffÏreceived€permission,€but€she€must€have€told€Occidental€that€sheÏused€the€time€to€tend€to€personal€business€because€theirÏattendance€report€lists€personal€business€as€the€reason€for€theÏabsence.€€The€second€remaining€absence€was€on€25€August,€the€dateÏdiscussed€by€the€œSupreme›€œCourt.›ÌÌà àFor€the€purposes€of€this€opinion,€we€treat€the€May€15thÏabsences€as€if€plaintiff€received€permission.€€The€burden€ofÍproving€a€disqualification€to€receive€benefits€is€on€the€employer.€Ïòòò òWeaveróóó ó,€565€S.W.2d€at€870;€òòò òMiotke€v.€Kelleyóóó ó,€713€S.W.2d€910,Ï913€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€Occidental€has€not€provided€any€proof€thatÏthis€absence€was€for€reasons€which€would€constitute€misconduct.€ÏMoreover,€this€court€may€take€into€account€whatever€in€the€recordÏfairly€detracts€from€the€weight€of€the€evidence.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ððÏ50„7„304(I)(3)€(1991).ÌÌà àò òC.à àCONCLUSIONó óÌÌà àConsidering€all€of€the€facts,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€courtÏthat,€while€on€the€surface€of€the€case€it€appears€that€plaintiffÏonly€missed€work€or€was€late€for€work€without€cause,Ïauthorization,€or€permission€a€total€of€4€days,€the€whole€of€theÏfacts€reveal€that€these€actions€exhibit€a€wanton,€careless,€andÏnegligent€disregard€for€the€interest€of€Occidental.€€To€explain,Ïplaintiff€received€two€written€warnings€concerning€her€attendanceÏrecord.€€The€3€September€warning€was€plaintiff's€final€warning.€ÏIt€mentioned€both€plaintiff's€production€level€and€her€absenteeÏrate.€€Moreover,€the€warning€explained€that€Occidental€wouldÏterminate€plaintiff€if€her€performance€did€not€improve.€€She€alsoÏreceived€two€oral€warnings€regarding€her€attendance€record.€DuringÏone€of€these€discussions€on€1€September,€Richard€Karcher€informedÏplaintiff€that€this€was€her€final€chance.€€Despite€the€clearÏdissatisfaction€of€Occidental€with€plaintiff's€attendance€recordÏand€its€intent€to€terminate€her€if€her€record€did€not€improve,Íplaintiff€was€late€3€days€in€October.€€There€is€no€excuse€for€theÏtwo€days€plaintiff€was€fifteen€minutes€late.€€Although€plaintiffÏhad€car€trouble€on€the€third€day,€this€does€not€explain€why€sheÏwas€three€and€one„half€hours€late.€€At€the€very€least,€it€is€theÏopinion€of€this€court€that€plaintiff's€actions€exhibited€aÏcareless€disregard€for€the€interest€of€her€employer,€Occidental.ÌÌò òV.à àCONCLUSIONó óÌÌà àTherefore,€it€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€any€further€necessaryÏproceedings.€€The€œcosts›€of€the€case€are€taxed€to€plaintiff/Ïappellant,€Cornelia€Simmons.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌœBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE