An amazing thing happened several weeks ago: An Pennsylvania unemployment compensation case was decided that is representative of the numerous facts patters I address ever week in healthcare employer termination cases. Well, that’s not the amazing part.The amazing part is the court realized that in the health care field employer short staffing and patient overload require nurses to engage in triage-type medical decisions and prioritize patient care to save people’s lives. The court held that even though these split-second decisions may be in violation of work place rules, such violations cannot be the basis for a denial of unemployment compensation benefits because the nurse’s rule violations are not willful and intentional, but rather inadvertent and in the bests interest of the patient.This case is Durand v. Unemployment Compensation Board, 2014 Pa. Cmmw. Unpub. Lexus 86 (February 7, 2014). Ms. Durand was discharged from her nursing assistant position for violating an employer policy pertaining to resident safety after she chose to care for one patient over another due to the severity of care needed and failed to properly bandage a patient because of supply shortages. The referee granted benefits and her employer appealed, claiming nurse Durand engaged in willful misconduct by deliberating the violating a workplace patient treatment priority policy. This a fact pattern that every nurse I speak to comes across at least once a day.Typical of all health care related unemployment compensation cases, the employer placed into evidence workplace policies, documents signed by the employee acknowledging receipt of those policies, an incident report of the specific rule violation in conjunction with prior discipline and the warnings of workplace policies. Thereafter, the employer presented testimony of a human resource director and an assistant nursing director to establish the discipline policy, patient safety policies, and how employee becomes aware of the policies in question.In this case, the allegations were that Mr. Durand did not follow the assignment on her worksheet and did not place proper medical devices on the patient’s legs for which inefficient care was alleged and complained of by the patient’s family. Further suggestions of policy breaches by failing to contact charge nurses, supervisory nurses, and improper documentation of alteration of medical protocols was alleged. Based upon these suggested numerous chronological rule violations, the employer suggested that Durand was terminated for willful misconduct or failure to comply with workplace policies and procedures. (The employer chose the family over the hard working nurse.)Ms. Durand testified as to 1) her very busy schedule, 2) the insufficient medical bandages present on the workplace floor to properly bandage the patient in question, and 3) the number of competing patients one of which fell and required emergent care. Ms. Durant also testified that she always worked best of her ability but acknowledged that a shortage in workplace supplies, under-staffing, and extensive budgetary constraints in workplace forced her to address numerous employment responsibilities all of which were competing in nature. Unfortunately, Ms. Durant chose to care for a patient who was emergently injured instead of the patient for whom she ran out of bandages.Nevertheless, the employer fired her and contested her claim for unemployment compensation. After a hearing the referee found that there was no competent evidence to support the employer’s position that Mr. Durant deliberately refused to follow instructions, but was merely caught up in the multiple demands of her time. When the referee determined there was not a sufficient level of misconduct to deny unemployment compensation (granting her the benefits) the employer appealed. Before the Commonwealth Court, the employer argued that the employee did not have a basis to choose between which patient or wounds that she would care, but rather the employee had the follow work rules which she received.The Commonwealth Court focused on a multi-part test; whether a work rule was in existence, whether the rule violation was intentional and deliberate, and whether the employee had good cause for the violation. If the employee’s actions were justifiable and reasonable under the circumstances, a consideration of all the circumstances, including the reasons for the employee’s noncompliance with the employer’s directives, will require the conclusion that the employee had good cause for the conduct and such would not constitute willful misconduct under the law.The court emphasize the definition of the word intentional to mean “in an intentional manner; with purpose or intention.” Purposefully the court defined as “deliberate; in order to retain an end with a presumed or awareness of the implications or consequences of one actions”.With this burden of proof in mind, the Commonwealth Court respected Ms. Durand’s testimony of her very busy day, the shortage of workplace supplies, and the overriding medical needs of multiple patients on the floor. Failing to follow a workplace assignment sheet, or place proper bandaging when such were not in supply does not constitute willful misconduct. When faced with conflicting work policies and utilizing one’s best judgment to choose between which policy to follow, the court concluded Ms. Durant acted reasonably in light of all of the conflicts.Taking a patient to the bathroom before her leg was properly bandaged presents conflicting policies. Resident/patient hygiene and care is an overriding concern. Helping a patient who has fallen over a patient with a bandaging issue is a policy choice not an intentional rule violation. Giving showers to residence for their personal hygiene when they can’t walk or do for themselves versus taking care of the laundry on the beds are policy choices not workplace violations.Putting a patient back on the toilet or bringing her from the shower if one has fallen takes priority over arbitrary and senseless rules. Under these such circumstances, which I am sure many nurses come across every day, the Court determined that Mr. Durand had good cause for her actions and was justifiable under all of the circumstances. The court found her testimony credible and the employer’s choice to contest her unemployment compensation not valid in light of the evidence presented.This case has broad ramifications for many nurse workplace policy violation cases. With the increasing health-care demands of our society and the shortage of qualified caring nurses, employers will not be permitted to fight unemployment compensation benefits based upon an arbitrary and capricious application of inappropriate rules that do not mesh with the overpopulated and underemployed nursing environment and the overwhelming responsibilities the front line healthcare workers face every day.Please call me to discuss your workplace will violation and potential licensing reporting concerns in light of alleged rule violations. Please read my other blogs and do not speak with give statements to any investigator regarding the circumstances of any job related investigation.
Nurses doing all they can, but get fired and fight for Unemployment Benefits
On Behalf of Hark and Hark | Feb 23, 2014 | Firm News |
Categories
- Blog (36)
- Criminal Defense (47)
- Drug Crimes (30)
- Dui (20)
- Federal Crimes (13)
- Firm News (306)
- Injuries (6)
- Medical Nursing (57)
- Pennsylvania Criminal Law (34)
- Philadelphia Criminal Justice Updates (13)
- Professional License Application (37)
- Professional License Issues (174)
- Professional Misconduct (5)
- Substance Abuse (1)
- Uncategorized (2)
- USMLE and ECFMG (3)
Archives
- December 2023 (1)
- November 2023 (3)
- October 2023 (4)
- September 2023 (1)
- August 2023 (2)
- July 2023 (3)
- June 2023 (3)
- May 2023 (2)
- April 2023 (3)
- March 2023 (3)
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (2)
- December 2022 (4)
- November 2022 (3)
- October 2022 (3)
- September 2022 (2)
- August 2022 (4)
- July 2022 (4)
- June 2022 (5)
- May 2022 (2)
- April 2022 (2)
- March 2022 (3)
- February 2022 (4)
- January 2022 (2)
- December 2021 (3)
- November 2021 (2)
- October 2021 (3)
- September 2021 (2)
- August 2021 (4)
- July 2021 (3)
- June 2021 (3)
- May 2021 (3)
- April 2021 (2)
- March 2021 (3)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (4)
- December 2020 (4)
- November 2020 (5)
- October 2020 (3)
- September 2020 (8)
- July 2020 (3)
- June 2020 (5)
- May 2020 (2)
- April 2020 (8)
- March 2020 (9)
- February 2020 (7)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (8)
- November 2019 (5)
- October 2019 (6)
- September 2019 (1)
- August 2019 (3)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (3)
- May 2019 (5)
- April 2019 (6)
- March 2019 (4)
- February 2019 (5)
- January 2019 (7)
- December 2018 (10)
- November 2018 (8)
- October 2018 (7)
- September 2018 (5)
- August 2018 (6)
- July 2018 (3)
- June 2018 (8)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (1)
- March 2018 (2)
- February 2018 (2)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (2)
- November 2017 (5)
- October 2017 (3)
- September 2017 (2)
- August 2017 (4)
- July 2017 (3)
- June 2017 (6)
- May 2017 (2)
- April 2017 (3)
- March 2017 (2)
- February 2017 (1)
- January 2017 (5)
- November 2016 (3)
- October 2016 (5)
- September 2016 (2)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (1)
- June 2016 (1)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (3)
- February 2016 (4)
- January 2016 (2)
- November 2015 (3)
- October 2015 (2)
- September 2015 (3)
- August 2015 (1)
- July 2015 (3)
- June 2015 (3)
- May 2015 (2)
- April 2015 (4)
- March 2015 (3)
- February 2015 (1)
- January 2015 (2)
- December 2014 (1)
- November 2014 (3)
- October 2014 (1)
- September 2014 (2)
- August 2014 (2)
- July 2014 (2)
- June 2014 (5)
- May 2014 (3)
- April 2014 (5)
- March 2014 (2)
- February 2014 (1)
- January 2014 (2)
- December 2013 (3)
- November 2013 (5)
- October 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (3)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (5)
- April 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (1)
- January 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (7)
- September 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (1)
- June 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (1)
- February 2012 (3)
- January 2012 (2)
- September 2011 (1)
- August 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (2)
- May 2011 (1)
- April 2011 (2)
- March 2011 (2)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (3)
- November 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (3)