this case based on the fact that Claimant is on WC disability. However, Homony is a UC case and Claimant is seeking UC benefits in the instant case. Thus, Homony is controlling. Moreover, the law is well-established that “[a]n employer has a right to expect an employee who is on sick leave to report back to work when cleared to do so by his physician or at least to notify his employer of his reasons for failing to return.” Geesey, 381 A.2d at 1344 (emphasis added). Thus, an employee’s failure to act in this reasonable manner in communicating with her: employer regarding her ability to return to work constitutes willful misconduct. Id. The Majority recognizes that “the [UCBR] relies upon Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 69 Pa.Cmwlth. 98, 450 A.2d 287 (1982) (<HOLDING>).” Majority Op. at 1239. It further notes: It
holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave holding that claimant committed willful misconduct when she did not return to work at the end of her leave and did not comply with her employers notification policy holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy holding that employers policy which required employee to work without pay in violation of federal law was unreasonable and employees refusal to comply was not misconduct