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 Pearl CREARY, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 23, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Discharged from her position as a community mental health aide, claimant's application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the ground that she was terminated for misconduct. We reject claimant's contention that this decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The record indicates that claimant ushered a violent patient into his room after he attacked a visitor and then struck the patient in the back of the head when he was simply standing in a nonthreatening posture. Although claimant denied striking the patient, her testimony was contradicted by a co-worker; thus, the Board was presented with a credibility issue which it was free to resolve against her (see, Matter of Dennis [Westgate Nursing Home-Sweeney], 233 A.D.2d 730, 650 N.Y.S.2d 1009, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 811, 657 N.Y.S.2d 403, 679 N.E.2d 642). It is well settled that “[f]ailing to comply with the employer's established policies and procedures and acting in a manner contrary to the employer's best interests constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 A.D.2d 818, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1025). Given claimant's awareness of the employer's rule prohibiting the use of excessive force on patients, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision affirming claimant's discharge for misconduct.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: October 29, 1998
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)