In re the Claim of Miller

234 A.D.2d 832, 651 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12609
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 19, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 832 (In re the Claim of Miller) 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 Miller, 234 A.D.2d 832, 651 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 6, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Discharged from his position as a certified nursing assistant for a health care center, claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied by the Board on the ground that he was terminated for misconduct. We reject claimant’s contention that this determination is not supported by substantial evidence. The record reveals that claimant was discharged after he left a female resident unattended for two hours. During this time period, the resident was uncovered in her bed and exposed from the waist down, she had not been changed into her night wear (indeed her shoes were still on) and her catheter bag was lying flat on the bed such that urine was not free flowing or draining.

Notably, claimant acknowledged that he was responsible for this resident’s care and that he left her in this condition. The record further reveals that claimant had been reprimanded in the past for violating the employer’s policy on proper patient care and informed that additional violations could result in dismissal. Under these circumstances, we find substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that claimant was terminated due to misconduct and, therefore, is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits (see generally, Matter of McOwen [Hudacs], 206 AD2d 573).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Casey, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Piles
286 A.D.2d 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 A.D.2d 832, 651 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-miller-nyappdiv-1996.