Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez

• Decision Date: 14 December 1983
• Docket Number: No. C1-83-1253,C1-83-1253
• Citation: Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Lopez, 341 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. App. 1983)
• Parties: Group Health Plan, Inc., Relator, v. Louise Lopez, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 294

341 N.W.2d 294

Group Health Plan, Inc., Relator, v. Louise Lopez, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security Respondent.

No. C1-83-1253.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Dec. 14, 1983.

Syllabus by the Court

An employee is not guilty of misconduct permitting denial of unemployment benefits where the employer hospital has not clearly enunciated its policy of patient confidentiality.

Dennis R. Homerin, Seyforth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, Ill., Reynolds B. Thomas, Jr., Bloomington, for relator.

Edward Soshnik and Janet Waller, Bloomington, for respondent Louise Lopez.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Paul N. Heckt, Sp.Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent Commissioner of Economic Security.

Considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and SEDGWICK and FOLEY, JJ., with oral argument waived.

OPINION

POPOVICH, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court of Appeals on a writ of certiorari from the Department of Economic Security authorized by Minn.Stat. §§ 480A.06(3) and 268.10(8) (1982).

After dismissal of employment by Group Health Plan, Inc., Louise Lopez applied for unemployment benefits. A department claims deputy found her guilty of misconduct and denied benefits. On an administrative appeal, the department appeals tribunal reversed the claims deputy and allowed benefits. Group Health then appealed to the commissioner whose representative, Ordner T. Bundlie, affirmed the appeals tribunal's decision. We affirm.

FACTS

Louise Lopez was a licensed practical nurse assigned to the OB-GYN section of the employer's hospital. She has a Down's Syndrome child of her own and overheard other nurses talking about a patient who was found to be carrying a Down's Syndrome child in her sixth month of pregnancy. The patient was not one to whom Lopez was assigned, but was being treated in the same section. She asked another nurse for the patient's name and address, and wrote an anonymous letter to the patient, telling the patient her own experiences with such a child and assuring the patient that there were many positive rewards in keeping and caring for a Down's Syndrome child. Lopez then wrapped and sealed the letter, together with a booklet written by qualified medical professionals entitled "Aim to Fight Low Expectation of Down's Syndrome Children," which informs parents about what they can expect from a Down's Syndrome child and informs them of a variety of support organizations. She addressed the package to the patient alone and delivered it personally to the patient's home mailbox. Later the patient's husband brought the letter to Group Health, complaining about it and wondering how their address had been obtained. When questioned, Lopez admitted she was the author of the letter and she was immediately discharged.

When Lopez was first hired, she was given an orientation checklist which contained the following statement:

One of the most important and professional aspects of our job is the security of privileged information. The illness or treatment of patients is confidential. Violation of this policy is cause for disciplinary action.

At some point, she was also shown a memorandum from Dr. Paul Brat, medical director, stressing that an active breach of patient confidentiality could not be tolerated. A breach of confidentiality was defined by Group Health during the hearing as "any sharing of information about a patient that is to anyone other than that patient" and that a non-treating employee who learns something about a patient should first approach the treating physician before talking to the patient directly. This latter rule was not part of relator's written policies on confidentiality, nor was it ever communicated to respondent prior to her termination.

After her dismissal, Ms. Lopez filed the application for unemployment benefits that Group Health now contests. She has never contested her employer's right to fire her; she has only contested Group Health's attempt to disqualify her from benefits.

ISSUE

Was the employee guilty of misconduct disqualifying her from unemployment benefits for violation of an employer's policy of patient confidentiality?

ANALYSIS

This court's scope of review is limited. In an economic security case:

The narrow standard of review requires that findings be reviewed 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. Metropolitan Medical Center, 332 N.W.2d 25 (Minn.1983); see Booher v. Transport Clearings of Twin Cities, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 181 (Minn.1977).

In general, the economic security laws are considered humanitarian in nature and are liberally construed. Hendrickson v. Northfield Cleaners, 295 N.W.2d 384 (Minn.1980). The legislature intended to assist those who are involuntarily unemployed through no fault of their own. Minn.Stat. § 268.03 (1982); Yackel v. St. Paul School of Hairdressing, Inc., 270 Minn. 203, 133 N.W.2d 29 (1965).

As an outgrowth of the policy, the legislature disqualified those they considered umemployed by reason of their own fault. Those who voluntarily quit and those guilty of misconduct or gross misconduct are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Minn.Stat. § 268.09(1) (1982). The disqualification provisions should be construed strictly. Smith v. Employer's Overload Co., 314 N.W.2d 220 (Minn.1981).

Misconduct is generally defined in an industrial sense: actions that make the individual unsuitable for the work he is performing. Unemployment Ins.Rptr. (CCH) p 1970. Under Minnesota law:

the intended meaning of the term "misconduct" ... is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand, mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertence or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed "misconduct."

Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295...