In re the Claim of Cleveland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cleveland

301 A.D.2d 722, 753 N.Y.S.2d 214, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 22

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 2, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 722 (In re the Claim of Cleveland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Cleveland, 301 A.D.2d 722, 753 N.Y.S.2d 214, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 22 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 21, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a mammographer at a breast cancer screening center due to her failure to adhere to the employer’s policy regarding the alteration of patient medical records. Claimant admitted in her hearing testimony that she had used correction fluid to erase a patient’s check mark entered on a pretesting questionnaire. Contrary to the employer’s prescribed procedures, this change was not initialed by either claimant or the patient, nor did claimant make any notation in the patient’s records in explanation of the erasure. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had lost her employment due to misconduct.

[723]*723Disqualifying misconduct may be found in cases where the claimant’s actions could jeopardize the employer’s interest, as is the case here where the employer faced potential liability in the event that claimant’s conduct resulted in the patient’s failure to receive appropriate medical treatment (see Matter of Rice [Commissioner of Labor], 289 AD2d 898, 899; Matter of Smith [Primecare Med.—Commissioner of Labor], 269 AD2d 654, lv denied 95 NY2d 753). As substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant’s employment was terminated under disqualifying circumstances, we decline to disturb it.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 21, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a mammographer at a breast cancer screening center due to her failure to adhere to the employer’s policy regarding the alteration of patient medical records. Claimant admitted in her hearing testimony that she had used correction fluid to erase a patient’s check mark entered on a pretesting questionnaire. Contrary to the employer’s prescribed procedures, this change was not initialed by either claimant or the patient, nor did claimant make any notation in the patient’s records in explanation of the erasure. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had lost her employment due to misconduct.

[723]*723Disqualifying misconduct may be found in cases where the claimant’s actions could jeopardize the employer’s interest, as is the case here where the employer faced potential liability in the event that claimant’s conduct resulted in the patient’s failure to receive appropriate medical treatment (see Matter of Rice [Commissioner of Labor], 289 AD2d 898, 899; Matter of Smith [Primecare Med.—Commissioner of Labor], 269 AD2d 654, lv denied 95 NY2d 753). As substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant’s employment was terminated under disqualifying circumstances, we decline to disturb it.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 722, 753 N.Y.S.2d 214, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cleveland-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack