Karen L. Humenik, Relator, vs. Mission Farms Nursing Home, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Karen L. Humenik, Relator, vs. Mission Farms Nursing Home, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. A05-2390, Court of Appeals Unpublished, July 11, 2006.

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A05-2390

 

 

Karen L. Humenik,

Relator,

 

Vs.

 

Mission Farms Nursing Home, Inc.,

Respondent,

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

 

 

Filed July 11, 2006

Affirmed

Randall, Judge

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 1420905

 

 

Karen I. Humenik, 900 31st Avenue North, New Hope, MN  55427 (pro se relator)

 

Mission Farms Nursing Home, Inc., 3401 East Medicine Lake Boulevard, Plymouth, MN  55441 (respondent)

 

Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent Department)

 

 

            Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Willis, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

RANDALL, Judge

Relator Karen Humenik challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is disqualified from receiving benefits because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by the employer.  We affirm.

F A C T S

Relator Karen Humenik worked as a registered nurse at respondent Mission Farms Nursing Home, Inc. from June 2003 until August 29, 2005.  She argues that, over an eight-month period, the new director of nursing, Heidi Larsen, drove her to quit.

Humenik identified five separate incidents leading to the termination of her employment.  The first involved Humenik's incident report about a patient leaving the building.  Humenik complains that Larsen should not have followed up on the report by phoning her at home or by asking her to complete a questionnaire.  In the second incident, Humenik wrote a report on a patient's coffee burn, but she complains that Larsen should not have sent the report to management.  When a drug card appeared to be missing in the third incident, Larsen determined that most of the nursing staff was not properly monitoring drugs, so she re-instructed and warned all of them.  Some time later, the fourth incident involved some medications that were mistakenly reported missing.  Humenik complains that she got a phone call at home about this incident.  It was later resolved, but no one phoned her to tell her it had been resolved.  The fifth and final incident was the August 29, 2005 phone conversation, culminating in the termination of
Humenik's employment.  Humenik also suggests that the nursing home was inappropriately encouraging patients to drink alcohol.

Humenik applied for unemployment benefits, but the department determined that she was disqualified because she quit her employment without good reason caused by her employer.  The unemployment-law judge (ULJ) made findings and also concluded that Humenik quit without good reason.  On Humenik's request for reconsideration, the ULJ affirmed.  Humenik now appeals the ULJ's decision.

D E C I S I O N

This court may reverse or modify the decision of a ULJ if the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been prejudiced because the findings, conclusion, or decision are erroneous under the law or unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record.  Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2005).

An applicant who quit employment is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits unless the applicant falls within a statutory exception.  One exception is a quit because of a "good reason caused by the employer."  Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 1, 3 (2004).  This court analyzes the specific facts of each case to determine if the reason was: (1) directly related to the employment and for which the employer was responsible; (2) adverse to the worker; and (3) would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment.  Id.  If the applicant was subjected to adverse working conditions, the statute further requires that the applicant complain to the employer and give the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the adverse conditions before quitting.  Id. 

The ULJ determined that Humenik quit her employment.  Humenik does not contest this determination on appeal.  The ULJ's determination was based on findings supported by the record.  Larsen unambiguously testified that Humenik quit during their August 29 phone conversation, and this testimony was consistent with the chain of events and corroborated in part by Boder's testimony.

Humenik argues that her quit was for "good reason" caused by the employer.  Our review of the record indicates that the five incidents leading to relator's termination reflect tight management, but not unlawful harassment, discrimination, or unreasonable conduct on the part of the employer.  Larsen explained her conduct, and Boder supported her actions.  Boder explained that the nursing home must investigate and report incidents.  There was no showing that Larsen's conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances.

Cumulatively the incidents do not rise to the level of an egregious, hostile working condition caused by the employer that "would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit." 

Humenik did not quit for good reason caused by her employer as set out in the statute.

Affirmed.