STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)

ATINA L PULLEY, Employee

PREMIER REHABILITATION & SKILLED NURSING, Employer

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 07004011JV


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed January 18, 2008
pulleat . usd : 164 : 8  MC 651.4

James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

In the petition for commission review the employer argues that federal law requires each individual to attain a legal prescription for each prescription medication because medications have side effects that could potentially be harmful. The employer states that codeine is no exception. The employer contends that the employee testified she knowingly took her son's prescription medication and that, therefore, her actions were intentional. The employer further argues that it cannot be proven the employee took only one dose of the medicine. These arguments fail. As the administrative law judge noted in his decision, misconduct is limited to actions reflecting an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests. Although the employee knowingly and intentionally took , her actions nonetheless did not meet that standard. The employee credibly testified that she did not know it was illegal to take someone else's prescription, that she took only one dose of the medication, and that she did so after work in order to alleviate pain associated with a work injury. The employee's actions may have been contrary to federal law pertaining to prescription medications, but, for purposes of the unemployment insurance law, were not undertaken in wilful and substantial disregard for the employer's interests and did not evince misconduct. Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.

 


 

[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]


uploaded 2008/02/04