In re the Claim of Wright

249 A.D.2d 668, 671 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3876
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 9, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 668 (In re the Claim of Wright) 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 Wright, 249 A.D.2d 668, 671 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 5, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling 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 licensed practical nurse following two incidents involving patients under her care. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant’s application for benefits on the ground that she had engaged in disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. The incidents in question occurred when claimant, in derogation of the employer’s procedures, failed to verify that a patient’s feeding tube.had been properly inserted, resulting in the patient being [669]*669transferred to the Intensive Care Unit. Claimant also failed to monitor a patient’s intravenous line every two hours, during which time the intravenous line dislodged, resulting in the patient incurring a substantial loss of blood and requiring a transfusion. Under these circumstances, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, particularly inasmuch as claimant’s conduct was clearly adverse to the employer’s best interest and jeopardized the safety of the patients. Claimant’s testimony to the contrary merely presented a credibility issue, which the Board was free to resolve against her (see, Matter of Dennis [Westgate Nursing Home— Sweeney], 233 AD2d 730, lv denied 89 NY2d 811). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Bohmann
29 A.D.3d 1250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Shene
304 A.D.2d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Apiado
304 A.D.2d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Martin
299 A.D.2d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Heintzleman
288 A.D.2d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Smith
269 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Marten
255 A.D.2d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Burger
253 A.D.2d 953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 A.D.2d 668, 671 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-wright-nyappdiv-1998.