Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In the Matter of the Claim of

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department


November 10, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF DANIEL J. MEAGHER, APPELLANT. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 10, 2010, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date: September 28, 2011

Before: Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Garry, JJ.

Claimant worked as a registered nurse at a hospital for nearly nine years. He was terminated from his position after he, on two separate occasions, obtained refills of a patient's prescription medications without a physician's authorization in violation of the employer's established protocol. Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified him from receiving them on the ground that his employment was terminated for misconduct. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. The failure to comply with an employer's reasonable rules that has a detrimental effect on the employer's interest has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Sutton [Albany Med. Ctr.--Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1621, 1622 [2011]; Matter of Dzugas-Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 60 AD3d 1178, 1178 [2009]). Here, claimant admitted to getting a patient's prescriptions filled without the physician's knowledge or approval in clear violation of the employer's policy as well as his professional code of conduct. Although he asserted that he did this after he was repeatedly unable to reach the physician and he had followed this practice on prior occasions, this does not, under the circumstances presented, excuse claimant's behavior, which subjected the employer to potential adverse consequences (see Matter of Heintzleman [Commissioner of Labor], 288 AD2d 742, 743 [2001]; Matter of Smith [Primecare Med.--Commissioner of Labor], 269 AD2d 654 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 753 [2000]). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.

Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court

20111110

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.