In re the Claim of Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Johnson

257 A.D.2d 823, 684 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 258

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 823 (In re the Claim of Johnson) 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 Johnson, 257 A.D.2d 823, 684 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 23, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Discharged from her position as a day care worker, claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the ground that she was terminated for misconduct. We reject claimant’s argument that this decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The record indicates that the employer had a medication safety policy whereby parents needed a physician’s note to bring any medication into the day care center and all medication was to be placed in the nurse’s office. Day care workers were prohibited from accepting or administering medication and employees were required to promptly notify the nurse of the presence of any unauthorized medication in the building. On June 4, 1997, a relative of one infant brought medication for a child that later turned up in another child’s bag. Claimant was terminated after she admitted being aware of the unauthorized medication and failing to report its presence to the [824]*824nurse. Although claimant later denied being aware of the presence of the medication, this testimony was contradicted by her earlier written admission to the prescribed conduct, which the Board was free to credit. It is well settled that “[flailing to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures and acting in a manner contrary to the employer’s best interests [can] constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818). Given claimant’s awareness of the employer’s medication policy, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see, Matter of Creary [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 644).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Spain and GrafFeo, 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 January 23, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Discharged from her position as a day care worker, claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the ground that she was terminated for misconduct. We reject claimant’s argument that this decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The record indicates that the employer had a medication safety policy whereby parents needed a physician’s note to bring any medication into the day care center and all medication was to be placed in the nurse’s office. Day care workers were prohibited from accepting or administering medication and employees were required to promptly notify the nurse of the presence of any unauthorized medication in the building. On June 4, 1997, a relative of one infant brought medication for a child that later turned up in another child’s bag. Claimant was terminated after she admitted being aware of the unauthorized medication and failing to report its presence to the [824]*824nurse. Although claimant later denied being aware of the presence of the medication, this testimony was contradicted by her earlier written admission to the prescribed conduct, which the Board was free to credit. It is well settled that “[flailing to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures and acting in a manner contrary to the employer’s best interests [can] constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818). Given claimant’s awareness of the employer’s medication policy, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see, Matter of Creary [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 644).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Spain and GrafFeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 823, 684 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-johnson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack