In re the Claim of Mitch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Mitch

247 A.D.2d 738, 669 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1580

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 738 (In re the Claim of Mitch) 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 Mitch, 247 A.D.2d 738, 669 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 21, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a nurse in a medical center after she administered the wrong dose of medicine to a patient in the alcohol detoxification unit. Our review of the record discloses that substantial evidence sup[739]*739ports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was warned and counseled on numerous occasions about her noncompliance with the employer’s medication administration procedures and that any further errors could result in her discharge. Although claimant contends that the error was merely a mistake, it has been held that persistent negligence in spite of prior warnings can constitute misconduct (see, Matter of Briere [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 647; Matter of Weinfeld [Coney Is. Hosp., N. Y. City Health & Hosps. Corp. — Roberts], 135 AD2d 880, 881). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision given claimant’s repeated noncompliance with the employer’s medication administration policy.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, 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 March 21, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a nurse in a medical center after she administered the wrong dose of medicine to a patient in the alcohol detoxification unit. Our review of the record discloses that substantial evidence sup[739]*739ports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was warned and counseled on numerous occasions about her noncompliance with the employer’s medication administration procedures and that any further errors could result in her discharge. Although claimant contends that the error was merely a mistake, it has been held that persistent negligence in spite of prior warnings can constitute misconduct (see, Matter of Briere [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 647; Matter of Weinfeld [Coney Is. Hosp., N. Y. City Health & Hosps. Corp. — Roberts], 135 AD2d 880, 881). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision given claimant’s repeated noncompliance with the employer’s medication administration policy.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 738, 669 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mitch-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack