Opinion
C.A. No. S10A-01-007-ESB Letter Opinion.
Date Submitted: September 16, 2010.
November 29, 2010.
Faye E. Burton, Millsboro, DE.
Monica A. Horton, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehy, Warner, Coleman, Wilmington, DE.
Dear Ms Burton and Counsel:
This is my decision on Faye E. Burton's appeal of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's denial of her claim for unemployment benefits. Burton was employed by Beebe Medical Center for five years. She worked as a patient safety attendant, sitting with patients and calming them down if they became agitated. Burton was at work one day, helping to hold down an agitated patient, when she got kicked in her side. She took an anti-inflammatory to relieve the pain. Later that evening, while Burton was sitting in a patient's room, she fell asleep. Burton's supervisor found her sleeping. Burton believes that the anti-inflammatory, when combined with other medications she was taking, caused her to fall asleep.
Falling asleep at work is an offense that results in immediate termination under Beebe's disciplinary policy. Burton was aware of Beebe's disciplinary policies. Beebe terminated Burton for falling asleep at work. Burton then filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The Claims Deputy, Appeals Referee and Board all ruled that Burton was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, finding that she was terminated for just cause.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have emphasized the limited appellate review of the factual findings of an administrative agency. On appeal from a decision of the Board, this Court is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence in the record sufficient to support the Board's findings, and that such findings are free from legal error. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Board's findings are conclusive and will be affirmed if supported by "competent evidence having probative value." The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. It merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings. Absent an error of law, the Board's decision will not be disturbed where there is substantial evidence to support its conclusions.
Unemployment Ins. Appeals Board of the Dept. of Labor v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308, 309 (Del. 1975); Longobardi v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Board, 287 A.2d 690, 692 (Del. Super. 1971), aff'd 293 A.2d 295 (Del. 1972).
Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994); Battista v. Chrysler Corp., 517 A.2d 295, 297 (Del. Super. 1986), app. dism., 515 A.2d 397 (Del. 1986).
Geegan v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 76 A.2d 116, 117 (Del. Super. 1950).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965).
29 Del.C. § 10142(d).
Dallachiesa v. General Motors Corp., 140 A.2d 137 (Del. Super. 1958).
DISCUSSION
This Court's role in reviewing an appeal from a decision by the Board is to determine if the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence in the record and free from legal error. Burton admitted that she fell asleep at work. Her defense was that she did not intentionally fall asleep. Beebe's disciplinary policy lists sleeping at work as an offense which results in immediate termination. Just cause is defined as "a willful or wanton act or pattern of conduct in violation of the employer's interest, the employee's duties, or the employee's expected standard of conduct. Burton's job was to comfort agitated patients. She certainly could not do that while she was asleep in a patient's room. Moreover, Burton's sleeping on the job put both the patient at risk for injury and Beebe at risk for a lawsuit over the patient's care. Burton's conduct was in violation of Beebe's interests in keeping agitated patients calm and comfortable, Burton's duty to calm agitated patients, and Burton's duty to stay awake at work. Whether intentional or not, Burton's sleeping at work was a violation of Beebe's policies and constituted just cause for her immediate termination. The Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence in the record and is free from legal error.Burton also argues that the Board should have ruled in her favor because Beebe did not appear at the Board hearing, the last step in the administrative process. Burton has misunderstood the appellate process. When the Board heard Burton's appeal, it also received the record from the Appeals Referee, which included testimony by Beebe's representative, Cheryl Graf. The fact the Beebe took no further action to defend the decision of the Appeals Referee does not warrant a decision in Burton's favor. The Board decided the case based upon the record that was forwarded to it by the Appeals Referee and the additional testimony offered by Burton at the hearing before the Board. It is that record that was before the Board and is now before the Court. Based upon that record Burton was terminated for just cause and is certainly not entitled to unemployment benefits.
CONCLUSION
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision is AFFIRMED.