IN RE: the Claim of Jill L. NICHOLAS (2005)

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 4, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a nurse practitioner and, as part of her responsibilities, was required to accurately document the treatments provided.   Claimant was discharged from her employment when she indicated in a patient's medical chart a normal gynecological medical finding without performing an internal or external gynecological examination on the patient.   The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.   This appeal ensued.

 “It is well settled that a claimant's failure to comply with the employer's policies and procedures may constitute disqualifying misconduct, especially in cases where the claimant is employed as a medical professional whose failure to adhere to prescribed safety procedures could jeopardize the safety of a patient” (Matter of Martin [Commissioner of Labor], 299 A.D.2d 624, 624, 750 N.Y.S.2d 661 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 507, 757 N.Y.S.2d 817, 787 N.E.2d 1163 [2003] [citations omitted];  see Matter of Powell [Commissioner of Labor], 21 A.D.3d 1166, 1167, 800 N.Y.S.2d 790 [2005];  Matter of Rice [Commissioner of Labor], 289 A.D.2d 898, 899, 735 N.Y.S.2d 637 [2001] ).   Although claimant characterizes her conduct as a mistake which does not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct, she nevertheless agreed that her notation in the medical chart did not accurately reflect the procedure performed and she could have been more thorough.   Moreover, claimant had previously been warned about her job performance and notified that any further indiscretions could lead to termination.   Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Kovalskaya [Commissioner of Labor], 16 A.D.3d 955, 956, 792 N.Y.S.2d 233 [2005];  Matter of Briere [Sweeney], 238 A.D.2d 647, 656 N.Y.S.2d 957 [1997];  Matter of Dennis [Westgate Nursing Home-Sweeney], 233 A.D.2d 730, 650 N.Y.S.2d 1009 [1996], lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 811, 657 N.Y.S.2d 403, 679 N.E.2d 642 [1997] ).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.