This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A16-0009
Sheila Fangel, Relator,
vs.
Health Partners, Inc., Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Filed August 15, 2016 Affirmed Kalitowski, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 33902009-3
Sheila Fangel, Mendota Heights, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Health Partners, Inc., Bloomington, Minnesota (respondent)
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)
Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and
Kalitowski, Judge.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Pro se relator Sheila Fangel challenges an unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ)
decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for
employment misconduct. We affirm.
DECISION
Fangel was employed by respondent Health Partners Inc. as a licensed practical
nurse for over 25 years. On September 1, 2015, Health Partners terminated Fangel’s
employment based in part on her failure to document patient encounters. Fangel sought
unemployment benefits, and respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) determined that Fangel is ineligible for unemployment
benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. Fangel appealed, and a
ULJ issued a decision that Fangel’s failure to document patient visits constituted
employment misconduct and that she is therefore ineligible to receive unemployment
benefits. The ULJ affirmed the decision after Fangel requested reconsideration.
When reviewing a ULJ’s decision, we may affirm or remand for further
proceedings, or we may reverse or modify if the relator’s substantial rights were prejudiced
because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are affected by an error of law or
are unsupported by substantial evidence. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2015).
An employee who is discharged because of employment misconduct is ineligible to receive
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2014). “Employment
misconduct” includes “any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off
2 the job that displays clearly . . . a serious violation of the standards of behavior the
employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee.” Id., subd. 6(a) (2014).
“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from
unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.,
796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). “[W]hether the employee
committed a particular act is an issue of fact.” Icenhower v. Total Auto., Inc., 845 N.W.2d
849, 855 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2014). We
“review the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision” and will “not
disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to
sustain them.” Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 315 (quotation omitted). “Determining whether a
particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct is a question of law that [appellate
courts] review de novo.” Id.
On appeal, Fangel does not argue that the ULJ’s factual findings are unsupported
by the evidence. The ULJ found that, in July 2013, Fangel failed to document an injection
that she administered to a patient and later failed to administer an injection to the same
patient as ordered by the provider. The ULJ found that, in August 2013, Fangel was placed
on a three-day unpaid suspension and received a written warning for her failure to
document and complete nursing responsibilities. In addition, the ULJ found that, in June
2015, Fangel received a written warning and was placed on a 12-day unpaid suspension
for excessive absences and alleged falsification of her timecard. The ULJ further found
that, in July 2015, Fangel received a verbal coaching from her supervisor, Kathryn Carlson,
after Fangel failed to document a non-stress test that she administered as part of a patient’s
3 “well baby visit.” And the ULJ found that, in August 2015, Fangel again failed to document
a non-stress test. The ULJ found that Fangel was discharged for, among other things, her
failure to properly document patient visits and treatment.
At the evidentiary hearing before the ULJ, Fangel admitted that she failed to
document an injection she administered to a patient in July 2013 and received a three-day
unpaid suspension as a consequence. Fangel also admitted that she had received a 12-day
unpaid suspension in June 2015. And Fangel admitted that she failed to document a non-
stress test in July 2015 and received a verbal coaching. Carlson testified that Fangel failed
to document a non-stress test in August 2015 and that, when she asked Fangel if Fangel
documented the test, Fangel responded, “I don’t see where I did.” Fangel testified that
“[m]aybe” it was possible that she failed to document the non-stress test in August 2015.
In addition to the testimony, the record includes Health Partners’ written warnings to
Fangel, which indicated that additional performance-related issues might result in
discipline up to and including discharge. And Health Partners’ termination letter to Fangel
stated that she was being discharged in part based on her failure to document patient
encounters, despite her prior warnings and suspensions. We conclude that substantial
evidence in the record supports the ULJ’s findings.
Fangel appears to argue that the ULJ erred by determining that her actions
constituted employment misconduct. As to her 12-day unpaid suspension in June 2015 for
excessive absences and timecard falsification, Fangel contends that her absences were
approved and that she was never approached by Health Partners to correct the error in her
timecard. And as to a number of personal phone calls that Health Partners alleged Fangel
4 made at the nurse station after being coached not to do so, Fangel contends that all of her
calls were made during breaks. But the ULJ did not find that Fangel’s absences were
excessive, that Fangel falsified her timecard, or that Fangel made or received phone calls
at the nurse station. Nor did the ULJ determine that Fangel’s absences, false timecard, or
phone calls constituted employment misconduct. Rather, the ULJ concluded that Fangel’s
failure to document and perform injections in July 2013 and that Fangel’s failures to
document non-stress tests in July and August 2015 constituted employment misconduct.
Regarding her failure to document the injection in July 2013, Fangel argues that
“[n]o harm was done to the patient” and that she has “documentation of other nurses not
documenting [i]njections.” As to her failure to document the non-stress tests, Fangel argues
that many nurses and providers forget to administer and document testing. But “[h]arm is
not necessary for a determination of misconduct.” Sivertson v. Sims Sec., Inc., 390 N.W.2d
868, 871 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 1986).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A16-0009
Sheila Fangel, Relator,
vs.
Health Partners, Inc., Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Filed August 15, 2016 Affirmed Kalitowski, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 33902009-3
Sheila Fangel, Mendota Heights, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Health Partners, Inc., Bloomington, Minnesota (respondent)
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)
Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and
Kalitowski, Judge.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
KALITOWSKI, Judge
Pro se relator Sheila Fangel challenges an unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ)
decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for
employment misconduct. We affirm.
DECISION
Fangel was employed by respondent Health Partners Inc. as a licensed practical
nurse for over 25 years. On September 1, 2015, Health Partners terminated Fangel’s
employment based in part on her failure to document patient encounters. Fangel sought
unemployment benefits, and respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) determined that Fangel is ineligible for unemployment
benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. Fangel appealed, and a
ULJ issued a decision that Fangel’s failure to document patient visits constituted
employment misconduct and that she is therefore ineligible to receive unemployment
benefits. The ULJ affirmed the decision after Fangel requested reconsideration.
When reviewing a ULJ’s decision, we may affirm or remand for further
proceedings, or we may reverse or modify if the relator’s substantial rights were prejudiced
because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are affected by an error of law or
are unsupported by substantial evidence. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2015).
An employee who is discharged because of employment misconduct is ineligible to receive
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2014). “Employment
misconduct” includes “any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off
2 the job that displays clearly . . . a serious violation of the standards of behavior the
employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee.” Id., subd. 6(a) (2014).
“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from
unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.,
796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). “[W]hether the employee
committed a particular act is an issue of fact.” Icenhower v. Total Auto., Inc., 845 N.W.2d
849, 855 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2014). We
“review the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision” and will “not
disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to
sustain them.” Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 315 (quotation omitted). “Determining whether a
particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct is a question of law that [appellate
courts] review de novo.” Id.
On appeal, Fangel does not argue that the ULJ’s factual findings are unsupported
by the evidence. The ULJ found that, in July 2013, Fangel failed to document an injection
that she administered to a patient and later failed to administer an injection to the same
patient as ordered by the provider. The ULJ found that, in August 2013, Fangel was placed
on a three-day unpaid suspension and received a written warning for her failure to
document and complete nursing responsibilities. In addition, the ULJ found that, in June
2015, Fangel received a written warning and was placed on a 12-day unpaid suspension
for excessive absences and alleged falsification of her timecard. The ULJ further found
that, in July 2015, Fangel received a verbal coaching from her supervisor, Kathryn Carlson,
after Fangel failed to document a non-stress test that she administered as part of a patient’s
3 “well baby visit.” And the ULJ found that, in August 2015, Fangel again failed to document
a non-stress test. The ULJ found that Fangel was discharged for, among other things, her
failure to properly document patient visits and treatment.
At the evidentiary hearing before the ULJ, Fangel admitted that she failed to
document an injection she administered to a patient in July 2013 and received a three-day
unpaid suspension as a consequence. Fangel also admitted that she had received a 12-day
unpaid suspension in June 2015. And Fangel admitted that she failed to document a non-
stress test in July 2015 and received a verbal coaching. Carlson testified that Fangel failed
to document a non-stress test in August 2015 and that, when she asked Fangel if Fangel
documented the test, Fangel responded, “I don’t see where I did.” Fangel testified that
“[m]aybe” it was possible that she failed to document the non-stress test in August 2015.
In addition to the testimony, the record includes Health Partners’ written warnings to
Fangel, which indicated that additional performance-related issues might result in
discipline up to and including discharge. And Health Partners’ termination letter to Fangel
stated that she was being discharged in part based on her failure to document patient
encounters, despite her prior warnings and suspensions. We conclude that substantial
evidence in the record supports the ULJ’s findings.
Fangel appears to argue that the ULJ erred by determining that her actions
constituted employment misconduct. As to her 12-day unpaid suspension in June 2015 for
excessive absences and timecard falsification, Fangel contends that her absences were
approved and that she was never approached by Health Partners to correct the error in her
timecard. And as to a number of personal phone calls that Health Partners alleged Fangel
4 made at the nurse station after being coached not to do so, Fangel contends that all of her
calls were made during breaks. But the ULJ did not find that Fangel’s absences were
excessive, that Fangel falsified her timecard, or that Fangel made or received phone calls
at the nurse station. Nor did the ULJ determine that Fangel’s absences, false timecard, or
phone calls constituted employment misconduct. Rather, the ULJ concluded that Fangel’s
failure to document and perform injections in July 2013 and that Fangel’s failures to
document non-stress tests in July and August 2015 constituted employment misconduct.
Regarding her failure to document the injection in July 2013, Fangel argues that
“[n]o harm was done to the patient” and that she has “documentation of other nurses not
documenting [i]njections.” As to her failure to document the non-stress tests, Fangel argues
that many nurses and providers forget to administer and document testing. But “[h]arm is
not necessary for a determination of misconduct.” Sivertson v. Sims Sec., Inc., 390 N.W.2d
868, 871 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 1986). And we have stated
that “[v]iolation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim
of misconduct.” Dean v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co., 381 N.W.2d 80, 83 (Minn. App.
1986); see also Sivertson, 390 N.W.2d at 871 (stating that “[w]hether or not other
employees violated [employer’s] rules and were disciplined or discharged is not relevant
here” and that “[t]he sole question before this court is whether [relator]’s violation of
[employer’s] rules constituted misconduct”).
“Employment misconduct” includes “any intentional, negligent, or indifferent
conduct, on or off the job that displays clearly . . . a serious violation of the standards of
behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee.” Minn. Stat.
5 § 268.095, subd. 6(a). “Because the nature of an employer’s interest will vary depending
upon the job, what constitutes disregard of that interest, and therefore misconduct, will also
vary.” Schmidgall v. Filmtec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 806 (Minn. 2002) (quotation
omitted). “As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and
requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Id. at 804. This is especially true in the
medical field, where “strict compliance with protocol and militarylike discipline is
required.” Ress v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 525 (Minn. 1989).
Carlson testified that documentation of treatment is necessary to inform hospital
employees why the patient came to the hospital and that a test was performed. She also
testified that failure to document treatment is “not common.” And Carlson testified: “[I]ts
basic nursing skills that I would think would be in place, that you know that you have to
document in a timely fashion so that other people have access to that information. Not only
for the mom but also for the baby.” Health Partners had a reasonable interest in requiring
documentation of patient visits and testing. Cf. id. (stating that “[hospital] had a right to
expect [relator], an experienced nurse, to operate in emergency situations within the scope
of his nursing license according to established procedures prepared to handle those
situations” and that “[b]reach of these necessary standards could expose the patient to
serious harm and expose [hospital] to malpractice claims: both legitimate interests of the
employer”).
“[A]n employee’s decision to violate knowingly a reasonable policy of the employer
is misconduct. This is particularly true when there are multiple violations of the same rule
involving warnings or progressive discipline.” Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 806–07 (citation
6 omitted). Here, Fangel’s actions included multiple failures to document patient visits and
treatment, and she received written and verbal warnings and a suspension for her failures
to document. Because Fangel knowingly violated Health Partners’ reasonable policy
requiring documentation of patient visits and treatment, we conclude that the ULJ did not
err by determining that Fangel is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.