STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)


MICHAEL D MICHALAK, Employe

REYNOLDS MACHINE CO INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99605074MW


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own. The commission also determines that further hearing is not warranted.

DECISION

The employe's request for further hearing is denied and the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed. Accordingly, the employe is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 20 of 1999, and until seven weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of discharge and the employe has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of discharge equaling at least 14 times the employe's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the discharge not occurred.

Dated and mailed October 14, 1999
michami.usd : 132 : 1 MC 605.05  PC 714.10

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employe has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision which found that he was discharged from his employment and for misconduct connected with his work. With his petition for review, the employe encloses a medical form (UCB-474), completed by his physician. The employe indicates he was unable to submit the form by the deadline set by the administrative law judge. The employe's doctor confirmed such delay. However, after reviewing the medical statement the commission declines to order further hearing in this case. The employe's doctor did not treat him until May 21. The absences at issue here were from May 10 through May 12, 1999. Further, the employe's doctor does not indicate on the form that the employe was unable to control his alcohol consumption only that "I have not seen him since 5/26/99." The employe must establish by medical evidence that he was unable to control his drinking during the time period at issue and, where as here the employe failed to make contact with the employer, that his alcohol consumption prevented him from making contact with the employer. The medical statement submitted by the employe does not establish that he was unable to control his drinking or that he was unable to notify the employer of his absence. For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision.


[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]