With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the employer’s written policy limiting the number of accidents occurring within a specified time and that this constituted misconduct sufficient to create a statutory bar to benefits. It is true that appellant violated the employer’s policy by exceeding the number of accidents allowed. However, we hold that there is no evidence that appellant ever intentionally violated the rules so as to manifest wrongful intent or evil design, or engaged in conduct from which the Board could infer wrongful intent or evil design. See Walls v. Director, Empl. Sec. Dep’t, 74 Ark. App. 424, 426-27, 49 S.W.3d 670, 672-73 (2001) (reversing Board finding no evidence of intentional violation of written policy regarding absenteeism); B.J. McAdams, Inc. v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 693, 600 S.W.2d 418 (Ark. App. 1980) (<HOLDING>). At the most, the evidence supports finding an

A: holding that an employees ordinary negligence in failing to perform work in accordance with the employers standards rules or expectations is not misconduct gross or otherwise
B: holding that an employees inadvertence ordinary negli genee poor judgment or inattention does not constitute misconducttherefore we conclude further findings are required regarding claimants mens rea at the time of the incidents that gave rise to her discharge from employmentvil violation of company rulewe reject employers argument that disqualification is appropriate under section 8781085evii crs2009 that seetion permits disqualification as relevant here if there is evidence that claimant engaged in theviolation of a statute or of a company rule which resulted or could have resulted in serious damage to the employers property or interests or could have endangered the life of the worker or other persons such as mistreatment of patients in a hospital or nursing home serving liquor to minors selling prescription items without prescriptions from licensed doctors immoral conduct which has an effect on workers job status divulging of confidential information which resulted or could have resulted in damage to the employers interests failure to observe conspicuously posted safety rules intentional falsification of expense accounts inventories or other reeords or reports whether or not substantial harm or injury was incurred or removal or attempted removal of employers property from the premises of the employer without proper authorityhere there is no evidence in the record that claimants actions resulted or could have resulted in serious damage to the employers property or interests or could have endangered the life of the worker or other personsthe panels order is set aside and the case is remanded to the panel with instructions to remand the case to the hearing officer on remand the hearing officer shall determine based on the evidence in the record whether claimant had a good faith but mistaken belief the toilet paper remnants she took had been discarded or abandoned by employer if so the hearing officer shall award her benefits if the hearing officer determines that claimant not only acted volitionally but also had the requisite knowledge and intent to deprive her employer of its property at the time of the actions alleged in this case she is not entitled to benefitsjudge hawthorne and judge terry concursitting by assignment of the chief justice under provisions of colo const art vi  53
C: holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination
D: holding that mere inefficiency unsatisfactory conduct failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances or goodfaith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed misconduct within the meaning of the statute applied to award of benefits to truck driver having three accidents in 11month period of time
D.