Andrea Lemoine v. Director, Arkansas Department of Workforce Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. E078-262
ANDREA LEMOINE
Opinion Delivered
October 1, 2008
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM ARKANSAS BOARD
OF REVIEW [NO. 2007-BR-1583]
DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE
SERVICES
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Chief Judge
The Arkansas Board of Review found that the appellant in this unemployment
compensation case was discharged for misconduct in connection with her work and was thus
disqualified for unemployment benefits. Appellant argues on appeal that the Board erred in
so finding because there is no substantial evidence that she was discharged for misconduct.
We affirm.
On appeal, the findings of the Board of Review are affirmed if they are supported by
substantial evidence. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Director, 93 Ark. App. 303, 218
S.W.3d 317 (2005). Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. We review the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Board’s findings. Id. Even where there is evidence upon which the Board might have
reached a different conclusion, appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the
Board could reasonably reach its decision upon evidence before it. Id.
An individual is disqualified for unemployment benefits if discharged from her last
work for misconduct in connection with the work. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(1)
(Supp. 2007). If the employee is discharged for misconduct in connection with the work on
account of dishonesty, the disqualification remains in effect until the employee has ten weeks
of employment at wages that at least equal the employee’s benefit amount. Ark. Code Ann.
§ 11-10-514(b)(1) (Supp. 2007). In order for an employee’s action to constitute misconduct
so as to disqualify her, the action must be a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, an act
of wanton or willful disregard of the standard of behavior that the employer has a right to
expect of its employees. Sadler v. Stiles, 22 Ark. App. 117, 735 S.W.2d 708 (1987).
We think that the Board reasonably could find that appellant was guilty of such
misconduct in this case. Although the evidence was conflicting, it is our duty to review it in
the light most favorable to the Board’s findings. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Director,
supra. Viewed in that light, the record shows that appellant was employed as a hospice nurse.
Her duties included visiting terminally ill patients in their homes, monitoring their conditions
and vital signs, providing the patients with palliative care, arranging for prescription and
provision of needed medication, and reporting her findings and actions to the central office
of the hospice program. Appellant was provided with a laptop computer to chart her findings
and transmit her reports. Appellant was terminated after hospice officials learned that she filed
a report of a visit, including visual findings such as dry, thin, fragile skin appearance and
cyanotic nail beds, several hours in advance of her actual visit. Although appellant testified
-2-
that she obtained the information in a telephone call to the patient, the fact remains that her
contact and findings were reported as a home visit. On this record, we cannot say that the
evidence is insufficient to support a finding that appellant dishonestly falsified a report. Nor
do we agree that such misconduct, given her employer’s duty to care for patients rendered
vulnerable to exploitation by virtue of terminal illness, did not demonstrate wanton or willful
disregard of the standard of behavior that the employer has a right to expect of its employees.
Affirmed.
M ARSHALL and H EFFLEY, JJ., agree.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.