ÿWPC® …# VUDa %¥ 0(« 0”Ó4g { Š w@’ 0DÒ 0J 0T` 0^´ 0h 0rz 0|ì 0†h 0î 1u~ 0dó B)WDC€ AMÃU*î: B(v~EvÓà D3– 0@É AO ÆX 0D D/b B‘˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóz!3|xÝ ÉDÊËÌEÍÎEÏÐÑÓ€Ý(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial äÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òSeptember€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò&&&&'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌJENNIFER€TURNERà àà àà àà àGibson€Chancery€No.€H„3395Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9510„CH„00238Ìà àœPetitioner,›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€George€R.€Ellis,€ChancellorÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#%";+'h|ÿ` Å `€€Lß›v.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌBILLY€S.€STOKES,€CommissionerÌof€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÌEmployment€Security,€and€WESTÌTENNESSEE€BEHAVIORAL€CENTER,ÌÌà àœRespondents.›ÌÌKRISTI€R.€REZABEK,€Law€Offices€of€Kristi€R.€Rezabek,€Jackson,€Attorney€forÏœPetitioner.›ÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSON,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€œROBERT€W.€STACK€andÏJAMES›€H.€TUCKER,€JR.,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€œNashville,€Attorneys›Ïfor€Respondent€Billyœ€Stokes€and€DALE€CONDER,€JR.,€Rainey,€Kizer,€Butler,ÏReviere€&€Bell,€Jackson,€Attorney€for€Respondent›€West€TennesseeÏBehavioral€Center.ÌÌò òòòAFFIRMEDó óóóÌÌOpinion€filed:Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àPetitioner,€Jennifer€Turner,€filed€a€petition€for€certiorari€in€theÏGibson€County€Chancery€Court€asking€that€court€to€review€a€decision€of€theÏBoard€of€Review€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Employment€SecurityÍ(ð ðTDESðð),€affirming€that€agencyððs€denial€of€petitionerððs€application€forÏunemployment€benefits€on€the€grounds€that€she€was€discharged€for€work„related€misconduct.€€The€chancellor€affirmed€the€Board.€€On€appealÏpetitioner€presented€two€issues€for€our€consideration:€(1)€whether€thereÏis€substantial€and€material€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€decisionÏof€the€Board€of€Review,€and€(2)€whether€the€Board€correctly€held€thatÏpetitioner€committed€work„related€misconduct€within€the€meaning€of€theÏEmployment€Security€Statutes.€€We€find€no€error€and€affirm.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€vast€majority€of€the€facts€are€not€in€dispute.€€Petitioner€wasÏemployed€by€West€Tennessee€Behavioral€Center€(ð ðWTBCðð)€in€Jackson€as€aÏpsychiatric€technician.€€Her€job€responsibilities€included,€among€otherÏthings,€the€assisting€of€patients€with€bathing€and€dressing.€€Petitioner,€atÏthat€time€pregnant,€was€examined€by€Dr.€Jeff€Ball€œat›€a€local€clinic.€ÏPetitioner€requested€Dr.€Ball,€an€obstetrician,€to€provide€her€with€aÏstatement€to€the€effect€that€she€required€assistance€in€moving,Ïrestraining,€and€wrestling€with€patients.€€Dr.€Ball€granted€her€request€andÏÑ7€·XXdìXXdì7Ñprovided€her€with€a€statement€to€that€effect,€handwritten€on€a€pre„printedÏform.€€Thereafter,€petitioner€left€the€statement€from€Dr.€œBall›€in€anÏunsealed€envelope€on€her€desk€at€work.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€following€day,€petitioner€telephoned€her€œworkplace€and€asked€aÏco„worker€to€find€the€statement€on€her€desk€and€place€it€under€herÏsupervisorððs€door.€€Petitionerððs€supervisor,€LaVonda€Roberts,€testifiedÏthat€she€found€Dr.€Ballððs€statement€taped€to€her€door.€€She€noticed€that€aÏ›check€mark€had€been€placed€on€the€form€next€to€the€words€ð ðlight€duty,ðð€butÏthat€no€duration€œas€to›€the€extent€of€light€duty€had€been€set€forth€in€theÏappropriate€space€on€the€form.€€Three€Xððs€had€also€been€marked€through€theÏfollowing€paragraph€on€the€pre„printed€portion€of€the€form:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€expected€duration€of€disability€with€an€uncomplicatedÏpregnancy€is€four€weeks€prior€to€delivery€and€six€weeks€afterÏdelivery.€€Women€who€perform€heavy€work€may€require€ð ðlightÏdutyðð€from€their€sixth€month€of€pregnancy€until€delivery,€whileÏsome€jobs€may€allow€the€woman€to€work€until€near€term.€€TheÏexpected€date€of€delivery€is€estimated€and€may€obviously€vary.ÌÌÌÓÓà àRoberts€then€called€Dr.€Ballððs€office€and€spoke€with€his€nurse,€whoÏadvised€œher›€that€as€Dr.€Ballððs€nurse€she€had€prepared€the€statement€butÏthat€ð ðlight€dutyðð€had€not€been€marked€on€the€form.€€The€following€dayÏRobertsÌtelephoned€Dr.€Ballððs€office€again€to€verify€this.€€At€this€time€she€spokeÏwith€œDr.›€Ballððs€nurse€and€with€Dr.€Ball,€both€of€whom€advised€her€thatÏœpetitioner›€had€not€been€placed€on€light€œduty.€€When›€Roberts€askedÍpetitioner€about€the€alterations€on€the€form,€petitioner€admitted€that€sheÏhad€marked€out€the€pre„printed€paragraphs€with€three€Xððs,€but€denied€thatÏshe€had€marked€the€light€duty€section€of€the€form.ÌÓÓÌÓÓ€à àWTBC€discharged€petitioner€shortly€thereafter,€based€upon€herÏviolation€of€the€institutions€policy€prohibiting€falsification€of€a€form€orÏrecord.€€This€policy€was€contained€in€petitionerððs€employee€handbook,Ïwhich€petitioner€acknowledged€as€having€received€œon€two€occasions.›€ÏSeveral€days€later€petitioner€filed€her€claim€for€unemploymentÏcompensation€benefits,€which€were€œdenied›€on€the€grounds€that€she€hadÏbeen€discharged€for€falsifying€Dr.€Ballððs€statement€and€that€thisÏconstituted€work„related€misconduct.€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2)€(Supp.Ï1995).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€agencyððs€decision€was€œappealed›€to€the€TDES€Appeals€Tribunal.€ÏThe€appeals€referee€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€issue€of€whether€theÏpetitioner€voluntarily€quit€work€without€good€cause€or€was€discharged€forÏmisconduct.€€The€sole€witness€on€behalf€of€petitioner€at€the€hearing€wasÏpetitioner€herself.€€She€admitted€to€having€marked€out€the€pre„printedÏparagraph€on€the€form€inasmuch€as€she€was€not€disabled€or€was€not€takingÏmaternity€leave.€€She€denied€œhaving›€marked€the€space€next€to€light€duty.€ÍWTBC€presented€a€written€statement€from€Dr.€Ball€in€which€he€stated€thatÏhe€had€not€place€petitioner€on€light€or€restricted€duty.€€PetitionerððsÏsupervisor,€LaVonda€Roberts,€as€well€as€Charlotte€Pruett,€WTBCððs€DirectorÏof€Clinical€Services,€testified€as€to€the€facts€we€have€outlined€previously.€ÏFollowing€the€hearing,€the€Appeals€Tribunal€made€the€following€findings€ofÏfact:ÌÓÓÌà8 àFINDINGS€OF€FACT:€The€appeal€was€filed€timely€(sic),€andÏAppeals€Tribunal€has€jurisdiction.€€Claimantððs€most€recentÏemployment€prior€to€filing€this€claim€was€with€WestÏTennessee€Behavioral€Center,€from€November€5,€1992,€untilÏNovember€3,€1994,€when€she€was€discharged.€€On€or€aboutÏOctober€21,€employer€discovered€a€medical€certificate€left€byÏclaimant€indicating€that€she€was€to€be€placed€on€light€orÏrestricted€duty.€€There€was€other€writing€that€had€been€markedÏthrough.€€The€certificated€did€not€indicate€how€long€the€lightÏduty€restrictions€were€to€last,€so€the€supervisor€called€theÏdoctor€to€determine€that.€€She€was€informed€the€doctor€had€notÏmarked€the€light€duty€restriction€section€on€the€note.€€WhenÏclaimant€was€questioned,€she€did€admit€marking€through€aÏwritten€portion€of€the€note€but€denied€adding€light€dutyÏrestrictions.ÌÌÌÓÓBased€upon€these€findings,€the€Appeals€Tribunal€made€the€followingÏconclusions€of€law:ÌÓÓÌà8 àCONCLUSIONS€OF€LAW:€Claimant€was€discharged€for€altering€aÏportion€of€a€medical€certificate€she€presented€to€the€employer.€ÏWhile€there€is€some€dispute€between€the€parties€as€to€theÏamount€of€the€alteration,€there€is€no€dispute€that€claimant€didÍin€fact€alter€a€portion€of€the€medical€certificate.€€The€AppealsÏTribunal€finds€that€discharge€was€for€work€connectedÏmisconduct€within€the€meaning€of€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2).€€TheÏAgency€decision€denying€this€claim€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àUpon€petitionerððs€appeal€to€the€Board€of€Review€of€the€TDES,€theÏAppeals€Tribunalððs€findings€of€fact€were€adopted€by€the€Board€and€theÏdenial€of€petitionerððs€claim€was€affirmed.€€While€petitioner€filed€aÏpetition€to€rehear€with€the€Board€of€Review,€none€was€scheduled€becauseÏpetitioner€offered€no€new€evidence€and€did€not€give€a€sufficientÏexplanation€as€to€why€proposed€witnesses€at€the€previous€hearings€shouldÏhave€been€heard.€€The€petitionerððs€review€was€denied€by€the€Board.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àFollowing€the€filing€œof›€the€petition€for€certiorari€in€the€chanceryÏcourt,€the€chancellor€affirmed€the€Boards€decision.€€This€appeal€followed.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€standard€of€judicial€review€applicable€to€unemploymentÏcompensation€benefits€cases€where€the€trial€court€œsits›€as€an€appellateÏcourt,€is€found€in€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„304(1)(3):ÌÓÓÌà8 à(3)In€determining€the€substantiality€of€the€evidence,€theÏchancellor€shall€take€into€account€whatever€in€the€recordÏfairly€detracts€from€its€weight,€but€the€chancellor€shall€notÏsubstitute€the€chancellorððs€judgment€for€that€of€the€board€ofÏreview€as€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€on€questions€of€fact.€ÏNo€decision€of€the€board€shall€be€reversed,€remanded€orÍmodified€by€the€chancellor€unless€for€errors€which€affect€theÏmerits€of€the€final€decision€of€the€board.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIf€there€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€to€support€the€decisionÏof€the€Board€of€Review€the€Boardððs€decision€is€conclusive,€and€the€trialÏcourtððs€review€shall€be€confined€to€questions€of€law.€€òòPerryman€v.€Bibleóó,Ï653€S.W.2d€424,€429€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€This€court€must€apply€the€sameÏstandard€as€the€trial€court€in€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€decision€in€anÏunemployment€compensation€case.€€òòArmstrong€v.€Neelóó,€725€S.W.2d€953,€955Ï(Tenn.€App.€1986).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOur€courts€have€defined€ð ðsubstantial€evidenceðð€as€ð ðsuch€relevantÏevidence€as€a€reasonable€mind€might€accept€to€support€a€rationalÏconclusion€and€such€as€to€furnish€a€reasonably€sound€basis€for€the€actionÏunder€consideration.ðð€œ€òòSeeóó›€òòSouthern€Ry.€Co.€v.€State€Bd.€Of€Equalizationóó,Ï682€S.W.2d€196,€199€(Tenn.€1984).€€Our€courts€should€not€disturb€aÏreasonable€decision€of€any€agency€which€has€expertise,€experience€andÏknowledge€in€a€particular€field.€€òòId.óó€€€€ÌÓÓ€ÌÓÓà àFrom€a€consideration€of€the€record€before€this€Court€that€was€theÏrecord€considered€by€all€lower€tribunals,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏfindings€of€fact€made€by€the€Appeals€Tribunal€and€adopted€by€the€Board€ofÍReview€and€considered€by€the€chancellor€contain€substantial€and€materialÏevidence.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€next€obligation€of€this€Court€is€to€determine€whether,€under€theÏfacts€found€in€this€case,€petitioner€was€guilty€of€ð ðmisconduct€connectedÏwith€such€claimantððs€work,ðð€so€as€to€disqualify€her€from€receivingÏòòunemploymentóó€benefits,€as€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€œ50„7„303(a)(2)€(Tenn.Ï1978).›€€Our€courts€have€held€that€the€unemployment€statutes€were€enactedÏfor€the€benefit€of€unemployed€workers€and€that€they€should€be€construedÏliberally€in€favor€of€the€employee.€€Disqualification€provisions€in€theÏstatutes€should€be€construed€narrowly.€€òòWeaver€v.€Wallaceóó,€565€S.W.2dÏ867,€869„70.€€Furthermore,€the€employer€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€anÏemployee€should€be€disqualified€from€receiving€unemployment€benefits.€ÏòòId.óó€at€870.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€òòArmstrong€v.€Neelóó,€725€S.W.2d€953,€955€(Tenn.€App.€1986),€theÏmiddle€section€of€this€court€ratified€earlier€unpublished€opinions€of€thisÏcourt€adopting€the€misconduct€standard€found€in€òòBoynton€Cab€Co.€v.ÏœNeubeckóó,›€œ296›€N.W.€636,€640€(1941).€€òòArmstrongóó€established€thatÏmisconduct€connected€with€an€employees€employment€was€limited€to:ÌÓÓÌà8 àconduct€evincing€such€wilful€and€wanton€disregard€of€anÏemployerððs€interests€as€is€found€in€deliberate€violations€orÏdisregard€of€standards€of€behavior€which€the€employer€has€theÏright€to€expect€of€his€employee,€or€in€carelessness€orÏnegligence€of€such€degree€or€recurrence€as€to€manifest€equalÏculpability,€wrongful€intent€or€evil€design,€or€to€show€anÏintentional€and€substantial€disregard€of€the€employerððsÏinterests€or€of€the€employeeððs€duties€and€obligations€to€theÏemployer.€.€.€ÌÓÓà àBefore€this€Court,€petitioner€contends€that€she€was€not€guilty€ofÏwork„related€misconduct€because€(1)€she€did€not€commit€a€materialÏbreach€of€a€duty€owed€by€her€to€her€employer€when€she€crossed€out€theÏpre„printed€portion€of€Dr.€Ballððs€statement,€(2)€that€the€act€of€marking€outÏthe€pre„printed€paragraph€was€not€a€ð ðfalsification.ðð€€She€also€contendsÏthat€the€Board€of€Review€did€not€produce€substantial€and€materialÏevidence€that€she€marked€the€light€duty€section€of€the€form.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àWe€find€petitionerððs€contention€to€be€without€merit.€€HavingÏacknowledged€receiving€her€employment€manual,€petitioner€was€put€onÏnotice€that€the€falsification€of€a€form€or€record,€in€connection€with€herÏemployment,€was€grounds€for€dismissal.€€Petitioner€owed€her€employer€aÏduty€not€to€falsify€Dr.€Ballððs€statement€in€any€fashion.€€PetitionerÏcontends€that€she€crossed€out€a€portion€of€the€statement€because€she€didÏnot€wish€to€mislead€her€employer€concerning€the€duration€of€disability€forÏan€uncomplicated€pregnancy.€€However,€the€remaining€portion€of€theÍdeleted€paragraph€œconcerns›€whether€petitioner€should€be€placed€on€lightÏduty€prior€to€delivery€depending€upon€whether€her€job€required€ð ðheavyÏwork.ðð€€This€is€an€argument€of€semantics.€€There€is€no€question€petitionerÏpresented€to€her€employer€a€statement€from€Dr.€Ball€that€she€intentionallyÏchanged,€in€violation€of€her€duty€to€her€employer€no€to€falsify€forms€orÏrecords.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àPetitioner€seeks€to€characterize€her€act€as€a€harmless€deletion€ofÏirrelevant€information.€€Considering€the€fact€that€petitioner€was€examinedÏby€Dr.€Ball€originally€for€the€purpose€of€receiving€a€statement€that€sheÏwould€require€assistance€to€handle€patients,€the€act€of€crossing€out€theÏtop€portion€of€Dr.€Ballððs€statement€concerning€light€duty€gave€her€employerÏthe€impression€that€the€information€had€been€deleted€by€Dr.€Ball€himself.€ÏThere€is€no€question€that€this€deliberate€act€altered€and€gave€a€falseÏappearance€to€the€document.€€We€are€of€the€opinion€that€this€act€was€inÏsubstantial€disregard€of€her€duty€to€her€employer€and€constitutedÏmisconduct€connected€with€her€employment.Ìà àLastly,€petitioner€concedes€that€the€marking€of€light€duty€on€Dr.ÏBallððs€statement€would€constitute€a€falsification€of€the€document,€but€sheÏcontends€that€the€Board€did€not€present€substantial€and€material€evidenceÍthat€she€actually€marked€to€space€next€to€light€duty.€€While€the€AppealsÏTribunal€found€that€the€amount€of€alteration€of€the€form€was€disputed,Ïpetitioner€herself€admitted€to€having€altered€the€form€to€the€extent€noted.€ÏWe€agree€this€was€work„related€misconduct€within€the€meaning€of€theÏstatute.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€onÏthis€cause€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€petitioner,€for€which€execution€mayÏissue€if€necessary.Ô€Ôà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLILLARD,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)Ì