Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Pilar L. APIADO, Appellant. North Shore University Hospital, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 21, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked as a laboratory technician in the employer hospital's blood bank. She was discharged from this position after mistakenly dispensing a unit of blood from the general blood bank supply for transfusion into a postoperative patient who had previously deposited a unit of her own blood to be used by her as needed. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had lost her employment under disqualifying circumstances.
A claimant's failure to comply with the employer's established policies and procedures may constitute disqualifying misconduct, especially in cases where the conduct in question is contrary to the best interests of the employer (see Matter of Heintzleman [Commissioner of Labor], 288 A.D.2d 742, 742-743, 732 N.Y.S.2d 490; Matter of Wright [Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d 668, 669, 671 N.Y.S.2d 188). In the matter under review, it is undisputed that claimant failed to follow the employer's protocol requiring her to carefully review the information in the hospital database before dispensing blood, a procedure which would have notified her that the patient was to be transfused with the unit of blood that she had previously deposited for her own use. Claimant's negligent submission of blood from an unknown donor had a potentially negative impact upon both the well-being of the patient and the best interests of the employer. As substantial evidence supports the Board's finding of disqualifying misconduct, its decision will not be disturbed. The remaining contentions raised by claimant have been reviewed and found to be unavailing.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 03, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)