{ "id": 3557363, "name": "ROBERT WINKLMEIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Winklmeier v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor", "decision_date": "1983-04-26", "docket_number": "No. 82\u2014508", "first_page": "154", "last_page": "156", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "115 Ill. App. 3d 154" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "418 A.2d 774", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 Pa. Commw. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Commw.", "case_ids": [ 1910633 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-commw/52/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "385 N.E.2d 931", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "935" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ill. App. 3d 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3305765 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "270" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/68/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 N.E.2d 44", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 Ill. App. 3d 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3074917 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/102/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "414 N.E.2d 1244", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1247" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ill. App. 3d 889", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3147836 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "892" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/91/0889-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 332, "char_count": 5027, "ocr_confidence": 0.754, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.7482991030049486e-07, "percentile": 0.832524019740147 }, "sha256": "088383601c6052c62ac9508a5c62c623ce95732951b6603cfae976a2b3d663f3", "simhash": "1:7cab6fd6c0b0aca1", "word_count": 799 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:16:24.783716+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ROBERT WINKLMEIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KARNS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal is taken from the judgment of the circuit court of Madison County reversing a decision by the Board of Review of the Department of Labor denying Robert Winklmeier\u2019s claim for unemployment compensation benefits.\nWinklmeier, during the period from September 1978 to July 1980, submitted 13 medical insurance claims to his employer, Granite City Steel Company. Each claim was for medical treatment for his wife and on each Winklmeier falsely stated that his wife was unemployed and had no insurance of her own. As a result, Granite City Steel\u2019s insurance carrier, Prudential, made payment to those who had rendered medical service to Mrs. Winklmeier. When Granite City Steel learned that Winklmeier\u2019s wife was employed and had medical insurance through her employer, Winklmeier was discharged. Subsequently, Winklmeier filed for unemployment compensation benefits with the State of Illinois.\nOn February 4, 1981, a hearings referee denied Winklmeier\u2019s request for benefits, citing section 602(A) of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 48, par. 432(A)) as the basis for his decision. Section 602(A) provides that an individual is ineligible for benefits, for a prescribed period, when he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 48, par. 432(A).) The referee found that Winklmeier had intentionally filed the claims containing the false information and that such conduct could result in higher insurance costs to Granite City Steel and reflected a wilful disregard of the employer\u2019s interest. The referee\u2019s decision was affirmed by the Board of Review. Winklmeier then filed a complaint in the circuit court pursuant to the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 3 \u2014 101 et seq.), seeking review of the board\u2019s decision. The court reversed without setting forth the reasons for its decision.\nThe parties agree that the sole issue for this court to decide is whether Winklmeier\u2019s actions constitute \u201cmisconduct connected with his work\u201d under section 602(A) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 48, par. 432(A)). This court will not disturb the referee\u2019s finding if it is supported by substantial evidence. Yadro v. Bowling (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 889, 892, 414 N.E.2d 1244, 1247.\nMisconduct, as is relevant here, is a deliberate act which constitutes a breach of an employee\u2019s duties and obligations to his employer. (Dotson v. Bowling (1981), 102 Ill. App. 3d 340, 430 N.E.2d 44.) It includes a wilful disregard of the employer\u2019s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer\u2019s rules, a disregard of the standards of behavior an employer has a right to expect of his employee and negligence in such a degree or with such recurrence that it manifests an intent to disregard employee responsibilities. (Granite City Steel Division of National Steel Corp. v. Board of Review (1979), 68 Ill. App. 3d 264, 385 N.E.2d 931.) It does not include mere insufficiency, ordinary negligence or good faith errors in judgment.\nWe agree with the referee\u2019s findings. It is undisputed that Winklmeier intentionally submitted the false information and his decision to do so was not an isolated incident. A total of 13 claims were filed over a 23-month period. In addition, the practice of filing the false claims could result in substantial financial costs to Granite City Steel. An employer\u2019s financial loss is a relevant factor in determining if a claimant should be denied benefits. Kneisler v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (1980), 52 Pa. Commw. 70, 418 A.2d 774.\nFinally, we are not persuaded by Winklmeier\u2019s argument that the misconduct must have a direct connection with the work being performed. We do not agree with this narrow interpretation of the statutory language. We point out that the meaning of \u201cmisconduct connected with his work\u201d can only be determined in light of the specific facts of each case. (Granite City Steel Division of National Steel Corp. v. Board of Review (1979), 68 Ill. App. 3d 264, 270, 385 N.E.2d 931, 935.) In the present case, we believe Winklmeier\u2019s behavior was contrary to his employer\u2019s interests and in total disregard of the standard of behavior expected of an employee. Such behavior constitutes misconduct connected with an employee\u2019s work and accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court.\nAs a result of our decision that Winklmeier\u2019s claim for unemployment compensation benefits must be denied, it is unnecessary to address the remaining issues raised by the parties.\nReversed.\nHARRISON, P.J., and JONES, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KARNS" } ], "attorneys": [ "Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General, of Springfield (Patricia Rosen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.", "Al J. Pranaitis, of Hoagland, Maucker, Bernard & Almeter, of Alton, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROBERT WINKLMEIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFifth District\nNo. 82\u2014508\nOpinion filed April 26, 1983.\nTyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General, of Springfield (Patricia Rosen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.\nAl J. Pranaitis, of Hoagland, Maucker, Bernard & Almeter, of Alton, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0154-01", "first_page_order": 176, "last_page_order": 178 }