Marsha Jagrup v. Juan F. Luis Hospital & Medical Center and The Commissioner of the Virgin Islands Department of Labor

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: February 21, 2024
• Docket: SX-2016-CV-68
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX

MARSHA JAGRUP ) PCtiti0n€rg CIVIL NO SX 2016 CV 00068

V ; PFTITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW JUAN F LUIS HOSPITAL & MEDICAL ; CENTER and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE ) VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ) 2024 VI SUPER 8U

Respondents 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ll 1 By Order Granting Petition for Judicial Review entered May 26 2016 ( Order Granting Writ ) the Court granted Petitioner Marsha Jagrup 5 Petition for Judicial Review timely filed on February 12 2016 I The Petition sought relief from the January 125 2016 Decision ofChief Administrative Law Judge June Austin ( ALJ ) affirming the initial determination of the Adjudicator within the Division of Unemployment Insurance of Respondent Commissioner of the Virgin Islands Department of Lab01 ( DOL or Department ) Therein in deciding Petitioner Jagrup’s internal appeal of the Adjudicator s determination to deny J agrup’s application for unemployment benefits, the ALJ found that Jagrup was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct For the reasons noted below, the Decision will be affirmed

ll 2 Respondent Juan F Luis Hospital and Medical Center, ( ‘JFL’ ) filed an Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Review on May 23 2016 denied by Orde1 of May 26 2016 The same date, the Court’s Order Granting W1it established a briefing schedule by which Petitioner was ordered to file and se1 ve Petitioner 5 Brief within thirty (30) days after DOL s filing and service of the certified copy of the record of the proceedings, following which JPL and DOL would then have thirty (30) days to file and SCIVC Respondents Brief

1 The 01de1 Granting Wxit required the Depaltment of Label to produce on 01 before July 1 2016, a record of the proceedings in the matter concerning the claim fen unemployment insulance benefits By lettel of June 20 2016 the Department of Label transmitted its 01 iginal file and 01 iginal t1 anSCI ipt 0f the Unemployment Insurance benefit Appeal Hearing Marsha Jagnq) v Juan F Luzs Hospital & Medical Centel and Dept ofLabor SX 2016 CV 00068 Memmandum Opinion and Order Page 2 0f 10 2024 V1 SUPER 8U

113 When Petitioner failed to timely file her blief on May 2, 2017, DOL filed its Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered June 21 , 2017 the Court denied DOL 5 Motion to Dismiss but required Jagrup to show cause why it should permit an extension to file her brief notwithstanding her noncompliance with the Court’s scheduling order In her July 10, 2017 Response to the Court 5 Order to Show Cause Jagrup explained that the delay was partly due to a change in counsel and requested additional time to file her inef By Order enteled May 9, 2018, the Court excused the delay and granted in part the request for additional time and Oldered that the parties adhele to the briefing deadlines prescribed by Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 91(f) (h) (twenty days for petitioner s brief and respondents briefs; reply brief allowed only by court order)

11 4 On May 30 2018 Petitionel Jag1 up filed her brief followed on June 18 2018 by DOL S Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Affirming DOL s Denial of Employment Benefits Respondent JFL did not file a brief The Court finds that the AL] 3 Decision is supp01ted in the record by substantial evidence and will affilm the Decision

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

11 5 On Febluary 12 2016, Petitioner filed her Petition asking the Court to review and vacate the ALJ 5 January 12 2016 Decision in MARVHA IAGRUP v JFLH (V 1 App No 003 02 2016) The record2 shows that JFL hired Jagrup in July 2014 as a full time Registered Nulse assigned to the Surgical/Medical Unit, working on a Flex time schedule At the time of her termination, Jagrup earned $63,000 annually

11 6 The Gov JFL Hospital & Medlcal Cenlel Employee Code of Conduct and Compliance Guidelines ( Fmployee Manual’) was the manual that sets out regulations and expectations of conduct, binding upon Jaglup and other J FL employees The Employee Manual

7 The tecord hetein includes the Gov JFL Hospital & Medical Centen Employee Code of Conduct and Compliance Guidelines the Gov JFL Hospital & Medical Cente1 Employee Handbook the Employee Acknowledgment Statement signed by Jaglup, Austin Thomas 5 My Living Will’ the Counseling and Corrective Action Form regarding the June 12 2015 incident involving Jaglup the June 16 2015 1ette1 placing Jagrup on administtative leave, Jagrup s tel mination letter dated August 17, 2015, the thin Islands Unemployment Sepatation Fact Finding Statement signed by Jaglupa the initial determination by the Department Of Labor 3 Adjudicatm the Iedetelmination by the Department of 1 abet s Adjudicator the Hansel ipt 0f the ptoceedings before the AU, and the ALJ’s January 12? 2016 Decision Marsha Jag; up v Juan F Luis Hospital & Medical (elite: and Dept ofLabOI SX 2016 CV 00068 Memorandum Opinion and Ordei Page 3 of10 2024 VI SUPER 8U

listed on pages 9 and 10 a non exclusive list of potential violations under the headings Conflzct of [mere 91‘ and Busmess Laurie 8'18? ems and Customer S'uppllel Relations

1i 7 The Employee Manual under the Conflicts oflmerest heading defined a conflict of interest as an activity, influence, or relationship that ‘ impairs, or even gives the appearance of impairing one’s ability to make objective and fair decisions in the performance of his/her job The Guidelines further admonished employees not to place themselves in any situation that might lead them to place their personal or financial interests ahead of those of JFL The Employee Manual conceded that conflicts of interest may arise despite an employee 3 best efforts to avoid such situations, but that the correct course of action for an employee to take in that instance is to disclose the matter to his or her supervisor

ii 8 Furthermore, under the Busmess Courtesles Gifts and Customer Supplzel Relations heading, the Employee Manual permitted JFL employees to accept gifts with a total value of $25 00 01 less in any one year from any individual or organization with a business relationship with JFL The Employee Manual identified Physicians practicing in the hospital or facilities as being in a business ielationship with JFL but did not so lefeience Nurses LPNs or RNs as suppliers, customers or individuals who have a business relationship with JFL for the purposes of gifts or business courtesies

1i 9 In pertinent part a section entitled Policy Headings stated that as agreed by signing the Employee Manual, the employee should ask do I contact my supervisor or the Compliance Department when I am not sure that I can keep a particular gift that I have been offered ” On July 22 2014, Jagrup signed an Employee Acknowledgement Statement agreeing to comply with the standards contained in the policies and procedures of the Employee Manual

1E 10 Jagrup was assigned to provide care for Austin Thomas, a JFL patient recovering after surgery in the Surgical/Medical Unit On May 13 2015 at the iequest and direction of Thomas from his hospital bed, Jagrup wrote out the words contained in Thomas s My Living Will ( Living Will ) As set out therein all the real and personal piopeity in Thomas s possession at his death was to be conveyed to Jagrup His last dictated w01ds stated that his wish was to be cremated The document was witnessed by two individuals Thomas was subsequently released from JFL but shmtly thereafter returned to JFL 5 Intensive Cale Unit wheie he soon passed away Marsha JagrLIp v Juan F Luis Hospztal & Medical Centei and Dept ofLabOI SX 2016 CV 00068 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 4 of 10 2024 VI SUPER 8U

11 11 Jagrup had called JFL 5 Risk Management official at some point during the writing of the Living Will but only to inquire about how to have the will properly executed Jagrup never informed Risk Management of the context surrounding the Living Will who wrote it and the fact that she benefited from it and Jagiup never informed her superiors that she assisted Thomas in drafting his Living Will

11 12 Jagrup carried out Thomas’s wishes as set forth in his Living Will that a local funeral home would cremate his body on death, a directive cairied out when Thomas’s remains were cremated

11 13 On June 12, 2015, a membei of JFL 3 management received a verbal complaint fiom a neighbor 0t Thomas stating that Jagrup impioperly had her patient Thomas sign over all his assets to her Thereafter, JFL’s management commenced an investigation

11 14 On June 15, 2015 JFL prepared a JFL Employee Counseling and Corrective Action Form outlining Jagrup s inappropriate behavior and triggering further investigation by JFL and the initiation of disciplinary action against Jagrup On June 15 2015 Jagrup was placed on Administrative Leave with pay, pending the outcome of JFL’s investigation

11 15 By correspondence dated August 17 2015 JFL advised Jagrup that she was telminated from her employment as a Registered Nu1 se in the Medical/Surgical Unit at JFL The correspondence cited Jagrup’s violation of JFL’s policies and plocedures contained in the “Code of Conduct’ as the reason for her termination

11 16 Jagrup did not challenge her termination but on October 8 2015, filed for unemployment insurance benefits On November 9 2015 an Adjudicator determined that Jagrup was not entitled to receive such benefits because her actions as reported by JFL and pursuant to V 1 Code Ann tit 24 § 304(b)(3) demonstrated a disregard of the standaids of behavior that the employel had a right to expect Disagreeing with the Adjudicator's decision Jagrup filed a notice of appeal under § 306(b) on December 2 2015

11 17 On December 14, 2015 AI J Austin presided over the appeal healing and heard testimony from Marsha Jagiup Patrick Piper a patient who testified on behalf of Jagrup, as well as Frank Abednego, Chief Human Resources Officer Justa Encarnacion, Chief Nursing Officer

and Dyma Williams Corporate Compliance Officer who all appeared as witnesses for employer Malsha Jagrup v Juan F Luis Hospital & Medical Camel and Dept ofLabor SX 2016 CV 00068 Memoxandum Opinion and Order Page 5 0f 10 2024 V1 SUPER 8U

JFL After hearing the testimony and considering the evidence, on January 12 2016 the ALJ issued her Decision finding that Jagrup was correctly terminated for misconduct under § 304(b)(3), Citing Jackman v Heylzger 20 V I 536 (D V I 1984) 3 Jagrup filed her Petition in this Court on February 12 2016

11 18 By her Petition, Petitioner asks the Court to reverse the ALJ’S January 12, 2016 Decision denying Petitioner unemployment benefits On May 26, 2016, the Court entered its Order Granting Writ ordering the parties to submit briefs Following procedural delays, on May 30, 2018 Petitioner filed her Petitioner 3 Brief, arguing that the Court should leverse the ALJ s January 12 2016 Decision for the following reasons (1) the ALJ’s finding that Jagrup engaged in misconduct under § 304(b)(3) is not based on substantial evidence and (2) the Decision by the AL] is contrary to the public policy set forth in the enabling statute

LEGAL STANDARD

11 19 V 1 Code Ann tit 24, § 306(e)(l) allows a party aggrieved by a hearing examiner's decision to initiate[ ] judicial review by filing in the [Superior] Court of the Virgin Islands a petition for review within 30 days after the hearing examinei s decision has been mailed to each party’s last known address or otherwise delivered to him Id § 306(e)(1) J agrup timely filed the Petition on February 12, 2016 Therefore, the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the Department of Label ALJ’s January 12, 2016 Decision

11 20 In granting a petition f01 review under § 306(c)(1), the reviewing court’s

jurisdiction “shall be confined to questions of law and in the absence of fraud, the findings of fact by the hearing examiner if supported by substantial evidence regardless of statutory or common law rules, shall be conclusive § 306(e)(3)

11 21 Where the Legislature has not explicitly required courts to apply a more deferential standard of review the Superior Court exercises plenary ICV1€W 01‘ an agency 3 conclusions of law

1 In Jackman the District Court held It is true that not every violation of employment proceduie which constitutes a proper basis for an employee 3 dismissal constitutes misconduct wairanting denial of unemployment benefits As used in the unemployment compensation statute misconduct means an act of wanton 0r wilful disregard of an employei s inteiests a delibeiate violation of the employer 5 1u1es, a dis1egaid for the standards of behavior which an employer has the right to expect from an employee, or negligence indicating an intentional disxegard 0f the employer s inteiest or of employee 3 duties and obligations to the employer ’ 20 VI at 538 39 (citations omitted) Mai ska Iag1up v Juan F Luz? Hospital & Medlcal Lenten and Dept ofLabOI SX 2016 CV 00068 Memorandum Opinion and Older Page 6 0f 10 2024 VI SUPER 8U

Bryan v Fawkes 61 VI 201 226 27 (V1 2014) In the instant case because the Legislature did not tequire a specific standard of review under § 306(c)(3) for the ALJ s conclusions of law, the Court reviews those determinations de novo Section 306(c)(3) does require that the Superior Court teview all factual findings under the substantial evidence standard

DISCUSSION

A The ALJ’s finding that Jagrup’s actions constituted misconduct under section 304(b)(3) is based on substantial evidence $122 Jagrup contends that the ALJ 3 Decision that her employment with JFL was terminated due to misconduct under the meaning of section 304(b)(3) was not based on substantial evidence The Court finds t0 the contraiy that the ALJ s deteimination was based on substantial evidence V1 Code Ann tit 24, § 304(b)(3) disqualifies an insured worker from receiving waiting week credit or benefits for any week ofemployment it she was discharged for misconduct connected with [her] most recent work An employee will not be denied unemployment compensation benefits unless the employee was discharged due to misconduct defined as

an act of wanton 0r willful disregard of an employer 5 interest a deliberate Violation of the employer 5 rules a disregard for the standards of behavior which an employer has the right to expect from an employee or negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interest of the employee 8 duties and obligations to the employer Jackman v Heyllgei 20 V I at 537

11 23 ‘Misconduct” is a question of law reviewable by this Court Where an employee appeals an agency decision denying compensation benefits, the Court must decide whether the agency’s decision that Petitionei engaged in disqualifying misconduct” is supported by substantial evidence Id In determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency 5 findings, the Court must examine the testimony in the light most favorable to the prevailing party [JFL] giving that party the benefit of any inference, which can be drawn logically and reasonably from the evidence See HH Tne & Battery v Croake, 2005 V I LEXIS 44, at *5

(VI Super Ct Aug 10 2005)

11 24 Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a leasonabie mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion ’ Virgin Islands Coalltzon 0f CIIIZQI’LS wzth Dzsabllztzes Inc /St Thamas v Gov I 0fthe Vligll’l Islands 47 VI 315 320 21 (VI Super Ct 2005) (quoting Black s Marsha Jag? up v Juan F L109 Hospital & Medical (@1116) and Dept 0fLab0r SX 2016 CV 00068 Memorandum Opinion and OrdeI Page 7 0f 10 2024 VI SUPER 8U

Law Dictionary (8th ed 1999)) If ‘ no reasonable fact finder could make [a particular] finding on the administrative record, then an administrative record is not based on substantial evidence D20 v Ashmoft 353 F 3d 228 249 (3d Cir 2003) Furthermore simply because the Court could reach a different conclusion based on the factual record before it does not mean that the record is unsupported by substantial evidence Consolo v Federal Marzlzme Cammzsszon, 383 U S 607, 619 (1966) That is, substantial evidence allows for the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions ” V1 6001111017 0f Citizens wzth Dlsabzlltles 47 VI at 320 Accordingly, if an administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence it is not subject to reversal simply because it might also support a contradictory finding P011N01m Exp Co Inc v I C C 697 F 2d 497 (3d Cir 1982) (citing 60115010 v FMC 383 U S at 620)

ll 25 When the Court applies the substantial evidence test, it is required to conside1 the whole record La Vallee Northszde CIVIC Ass n v Vngm Islands 80’ 0fLand Use Appeals, 30 V1 9 16 (V1 Terr Ct 1994) (citing Unnersal Carmela Corp v NLRB 340 U S 474 (1951)) In other words the Court must do more than simply find a justification for the agency”s decision, it must also determine whether the agency’s ruling was reasonable in light of all the evidence presented Id “The substantiality of the evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight ” Govt of the Virgin Islands v Public Employee Relafzom Board, 22 V1 12, 23 (VI Terr Ct 1986) Finally, when the Court reviews an agency record for lack of substantial evidence, it must be conscious of the AL] 5 opportunity to appraise the credibility and consider the weight of the evidence in the fist instance S'ee Marte De Velez v V. 1 Dept ofLabor, 2018 VI LEXIS 166 at *5 (VI Super Ct July 25 2018)

11 26 Here the AL] heard and considered the testimony of five individuals Petitioner Jagrup, JFL patient Patxick Pipe1 who testified on behalf of Jagrup as well as Abednego, Encarnacion, and Williams who testified on behalf of JFL The transc1ipt of the hearing clearly demonstrates that the AL] kept the proceeding focused on the issues at hand For example; she stopped counsel for Petitioner from going down the line of questioning concerning the cremation of Thomas challenging its relevance and stating in relevant part the issue is whether or not Miss Jagrup engaged in misconduct I respectfully unde1 stand that you re attempting to lay a foundation a connection a nexus between Miss Jagrup 3 relationship with Mr Thomas ’ but Marsha Jag? up v Juan F Lu” Hospltal & Medical Lento) and Dept of Labm SX 2016 CV 00068 Memorandum Opinion and Older Page 8 0f 10 2024 VI SUPER 8U

the ALJ cerrectly noted the hearing 3 focus we have to keep the scope of the facts relevant to my findings as to whether or not she [Jagrup] engaged in misconduct ” Tr at 42 43

fit 27 In addition the AL] considered the relevant sections of the Employee Manual that JFL accused Jagrup of Violating, including the prohibition against accepting gifts above a certain value or placing one’s personal or financial interests ahead of those of JFL The ALJ further considered the Employee Acknowledgment Statement signed by Jagrup indicating that she agreed to comply with the standards contained in the policies and procedures of the Employee Manual

H 28 Furthermore, the ALJ considered patient Piper s testimony rightly noting the high quality and ‘praiseworthy ’ nursing care Jagrup had provided to Thomas However, the ALJ also took notice of Jagrup s testimony and her contradictory actions after the death of Thomas Jagrup claimed that she had no intention to carry out the teims of the Living Will and that she had merely written it to calm the patient and to put him at ease Yet she failed to disclose to her employer her involvement in writing Thomas 5 Living Will and she traveled to Thomas’s home to look for his house keys The ALJ found such conduct demonstrative 0f Jagrup’s intent to implement the terms of the Living Will conduct that was contrary to the inteiests and expectations of her employer The ALJ found that these actions constituted misconduct under § 304(b)(3) The testimony and documentary evidence considered by the ALJ, coupled with the ALJ’s conoboration 0f the facts during direct examination of the parties at the hearing, supports the ALJ’s conclusion, and a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion if presented with the same evidence

1T 29 In her brief Jagrup quotes swaths of dialogue from the hearing transcript without analysis supporting her claim that the AL] 3 finding was not based on substantial evidence Ultimately Jagrup asserts that (1) she provided her patients with good care, (2) sought advice from her supervisors when confronted with the issue of Thomas s intent to bequeath to her his property and that (3) she only accepted the Living Will to appease Thomas but never took any action to gain ownership of his property after his death

fl 30 Jagrup was not accused of misconduct concelning the quality of professional care she provided as a nurse to her patients JFL never laised the issue of Jagrup’s work performance Maisha Jag} up v Juan F Luzs Hospital & Medical Cenlei and Dept ()fLabm SX 2016 CV 00068 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 9 0f10 2024 VI SUPER 8U

In fact the ALJ made a finding, based on the evidence in the record that Jagrup provided her patients, including Thomas, with excellent care

1t 31 The Court finds there is substantial evidentiary support for the ALJ s conclusion that Jagrup’s assertions that she sought advice from her supeivisors regaiding the Living Will and that she only wrote and accepted it in order to appease patient Thomas were disingenuous Perhaps the most appropriate response to these assertions is summarized by the following query Why would Jagrup seek advice from her supervisors regarding the execution of the will it Jagrup had no intention of executing the will in the first instance? The ALJ found no reasonable explanation to this question in Jagrup s testimony nor anywhere else in the record before her and neither does this Court on review

1] 32 Thus when Jagrup accepted Thomas s invitation to assist him in writing out his Living Will and then tried to execute its terms she was putting her interests in direct conflict with those of her employer JFL and its duty of care to decedent Thomas Such a conflict of interest even if initiated by Thomas out of a well meaning but misinformed desire to help a caring nurse, was the inevitable result of Jagrup s actions in clear violation of JFL 5 policies to which Jagrup had previously agreed to adhere and abide by TherefOIe the Court finds Jagrup s assertions to be baseless and unpei suasive and finds the ALJ’s conclusion that Jagrup engaged in misconduct under section 304(b)(3) to be supported by substantial evidence in the record

B Jagrup's contention that the ALJ’s Decision is contrary to the public policy set forth in 24 V I C § 301 is meritless 1] 33 Finally, Jagrup contends that the ALJ 3 Decision is contrary to the public policy set forth in 24 VI C § 301 Specifically Jagrup argues that since 24 VI C § 301 sets forth a public policy of protecting citizens from the economic insecurity attending unemployment, and because Jagrup was an unemployed parent of three children when she came before the ALJ at her unemployment benefits hearing the ALJ s decision to deny Jagiup benefits violated the law The Court finds Jagrup s contention meritless

1] 34 The stated purpose of the Virgin Islands Unemployment Insurance Act ( UTA”) which includes Section 304(b)(3) is to establish a general unemployment fund to help “sustain the Marsha Jag? up v Juan F Luis Hospital & Medical Centu and Dept of Labor SX 2016 CV 00068 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 10 0f 10 2024 V1 SUPER 8U

morale and conserve the skills and standards of living of those who became unemployed, by enabling them to meet their essential expenses ’ 24 V I C § 301

fl 35 Title 24 section 306 of the Virgin Islands Code which authorizes administrative appeals of initial determinations of unemployment insurance eligibility provides that after a hearing, ‘a hearing examinei shall make findings and conclusions promptly and on the basis thereof affirm modify, or reveise the Commissioner's determination or redetermination ’ 24 VI C § 306(6) The statutory conditions for receipt of benefits are set forth in Section 304, and these conditions along with the case law which has interpreted them are what the ALJ uses to guide her determinations regarding a worker s unemployment benefits eligibility

11 36 In the instant case, if the Court were to follow Petitioner Jagrup s logic then any insured worker who finds themself unemployed irrespective of how they came to be unemployed would be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits Unemployment insurance benefits eligibility would thus be a foregone conclusion for anyone and everyone who finds themselves newly unemployed and any ruling denying benefits would be Violative of the statutory scheme However, it is this very same statutory scheme of the UIA, which Jagrup contends was violated by the AL] s Decision, that contains the relevant conditions under Section 304 for receiving

unemployment insurance benefits Jagrup failed to meet the conditions under Section 304 of the UIA and was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits Accordingly, this claim of error also fails In light of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that the decision in the matter MARSHA JAGRUP v JFLH (V I App No 003 02 2016) is AFFIRMED It is further

ORDERED that Petitioner 5 Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUIDCE It is further

ORDERED that this case is CLOSED

DATED Februaryié 2024 DOUGLAS A BRADY JUiiGE ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the C y By é? / {Zak Court Cler upervisor IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS District of St. Croix

MARSHA JAGRUP, Case Number: SX-2016-CV-00068 Petitioner, Action: Writ of Review v.

JUAN F. LUIS HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Respondents.

NOTICE of ENTRY of JUDGMENT/ORDER To: Trudy Fenster, Esq. Michael R. Francisco, Esq., AAG

Please take notice that on February 22, 2024 a(n) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dated February 21, 2024 was/were entered by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.

Dated: February 22, 2024 Tamara Charles Clerk of the Court By:

Cheryl Parris Court Clerk III