This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Lois R. Rieland,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Department of Employment and Economic Development
Agency File No. 16822 04
Melrose Area Hospital CentraCare,
Linda Alison Holmes, Department
of Employment and Economic Dev.,
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Dietzen, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Relator challenges the decision of the senior unemployment review judge (SURJ) that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct. Because the record contains evidence reasonably tending to support the SURJ’s findings and because such conduct represents disqualifying misconduct, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
The sole issue is whether relator’s conduct constituted employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2004). The SURJ determined that it did constitute misconduct.
The factual findings of the SURJ are “viewed in the light
most favorable to the decision, and if there is evidence reasonably tending to
sustain them, they will not be disturbed.” White
v. Metro. Med. Ctr., 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (
An applicant who is discharged shall be disqualified from
benefits if the discharge was due to employment misconduct.
Relator worked as a certified nursing assistant (CNA) at respondent nursing home from August 17, 1981 to October 18, 2004. She was discharged based on five “warnings” that she received over the last 22 months of her employment: the first was a verbal reprimand, the next three were written warnings including a specific caution that another incident could result in termination, and the fifth written warning resulted in her termination.
The SURJ noted that relator worked with vulnerable adults
and concluded that her “actions in dealing with her patients during her final
year and a half with
These incidents show relator’s multiple policy violations
in a vulnerable adult employment setting which support the conclusion that
relator showed a substantial lack of concern for her employment. See
Auger v. Gillette Co., 303 N.W.2d 255, 257 (