Buck v. Dir. , 449 S.W.3d 705 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 685
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. E-13-1249
TERESA BUCK Opinion Delivered December 3, 2014
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
V. BOARD OF REVIEW
[NO. 2013-BR-03315]
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES, AND LAKE
HAMILTON HEALTH AND
REHABILITATION AFFIRMED
APPELLEES
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
Appellant Teresa Buck appeals the Board of Review’s decision denying her
unemployment benefits on the basis that she voluntarily left her last work without good cause
connected to the work. On appeal, Buck argues that she voluntarily left her employment for
good cause. We affirm the Board’s denial of benefits.
Buck was employed by Lake Hamilton Health and Rehabilitation (LHHR), a long-
term-care and rehabilitation facility, from May 14, 2013, to June 13, 2013, as a registered
nurse. Buck’s testimony was that on June 13, 2013, she arrived for her shift at 2:30 p.m.,
prepared to receive her report from the day nurse from 2:30 until 3 p.m.; instead, she was
asked to assist with the discharge of a patient, and could not perform the medicine-cart count
with the day nurse until 3:15 p.m., after which she began distributing medication, which was
to be completed between 3 and 5 p.m. However, the assistant director of nursing told her
to stop and take a report on a new admission LHHR was receiving later that evening; after
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 685
Buck performed this task she began distributing medication again only to be called away a
second time due to an agitated patient requiring her attention. Buck requested and received
assistance from the assistant director of nursing with the agitated patient; while she was calling
the patient’s physician for new medication around 4:15 p.m., the assistant director of nursing
told her that one of Buck’s patient’s had requested a narcotic over an hour before and was in
pain. Buck retrieved the agitated patient’s new medication from a locked room and
administered the new medication; she then gave the narcotic medication requested by the
other patient and, as she came out of that patient’s room at approximately 5 p.m., the
administrator directed her to go to the dining hall for dinner. Buck said that she asked the
administrator whether she wanted Buck to distribute medication or give meals and was told
to report to the dining hall.
Buck testified that she did not tell the director of nursing that the assistant director of
nursing had pulled her away from distributing medication to assess the agitated patient, but
that the director of nursing knew there was an intervening event and did not give her any
advice as to how to handle it and distribute medication at the same time. Buck said that she
had been ordered to distribute medications; the administrator’s order to report to the dining
hall countermanded that order; and, in her opinion, the administrator’s order placed her
nursing license in jeopardy because she had not completed distributing medications prior to
dinner. She stated that she believed it was an unsafe situation, so she quit.
On cross-examination, Buck agreed that the assistant director of nursing assisted her
when she asked for help, but she asserted that she was assigned additional tasks that took her
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 685
away from distributing medication and prevented her from finishing by 5 p.m. Buck
testified that she was to follow orders from the director of nursing, the assistant director of
nursing, and the administrator, and, in her experience as a nurse for over thirty years, if there
was a conflict or discrepancy that she was concerned about, she was to clarify it with the
doctor or supervisor. Buck admitted that she did not tell any of the people giving her orders
that she felt there were too many people giving her orders, but that she was trying to follow
everyone’s orders, and they were disrupting her.
Ruthanne Murphy, a lawyer and a registered nurse who testified on Buck’s behalf, said
that Buck believed her nursing license was in jeopardy due to the conflicting orders she had
been given. Murphy stated that she had concerns about LHHR procedures because a nurse
is placed “in the middle” when she is given diametrically opposite orders from supervisors,
and it certainly created a problem when an administrator countermanded orders of the
director of nursing. Murphy acknowledged that, as a registered nurse, intervening events
occur that interrupt routine things such as distributing medications.
LHHR witnesses Amanda Levato, the administrator, and Christi Norman, the director
of nursing, both testified that Buck never alerted them that she needed assistance performing
her duties on the day she quit or that she thought her nursing license was in jeopardy due to
conflicting orders. Levato said that Buck did not give a reason for leaving, she just told
Levato that she was done. Norman said that while it was not normal for the director of
nursing or the assistant director of nursing to assist the staff, Buck was new and they wanted
to ensure she got all the help she needed so that she would not be overloaded; however, on
3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 685
the day in question, Buck never told anyone that she was behind and needed help, that she
was getting too many orders from too many people, or that she believed her nursing license
was in jeopardy.
Melissa Atkinson, a day-shift registered nurse at LHHR, testified that she had the same
duties as Buck; that they were not in control of intervening events, including when
admissions arrived from the hospital; that Buck did not ask her for help any time that day; and
that when she needed help on her shift, she had always received it. She further stated that she
had not found the orders she received at LHHR to be conflicting, and that everyone helped
everyone else and there was a lot of teamwork.
The Appeal Tribunal found that Buck voluntarily left her last work without good cause
connected with the work, and the Board of Review affirmed that decision. Buck now
appeals to this court.
This court affirms the Board of Review when its decision is supported by substantial
evidence, which is such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Allen v. Dir., 2014 Ark. App. 233, 434 S.W.3d 384. The evidence and
all reasonable inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the Board’s findings. Id.
Even if the evidence could support a contrary decision, our review is limited to whether the
Board could have reasonably reached its decision based on the evidence presented. Id.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-513 (Repl. 2012) provides that an individual
shall be disqualified for unemployment benefits if she “voluntarily and without good cause
connected with the work left his or her last work.” “Good cause” is defined as “a cause that
4
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 685
would reasonably impel the average able-bodied, qualified worker to give up his or her
employment.” Wilson v. Dir., 2013 Ark. App. 276. An employee is required to make
reasonable efforts to preserve her job rights in order to receive unemployment benefits. Id.
Here, the Board made the following findings:
The claimant contended that she quit her employment due to receiving conflicting
orders from the director of nursing and administrator and due to her concern that her
nursing license was in jeopardy. Levato and Norman testified that the claimant was
required to complete distribution of medication by 5:00 p.m. on a regular basis, and
that other events that occurred during her shift were normal and part of her job duties.
Additionally, both Levato and Norman testified that the claimant did not express that
she was not able to complete the distribution of medication or ask for assistance, and
did not express her concerns that her nursing license was in jeopardy. The claimant
testified that Levato and Norman were aware of the situation with the medication
even though she did not specifically speak to them about it. However, the claimant
admitted that she did not speak to Levato and Norman about the conflicting orders or
her concerns about her nursing license being in jeopardy prior to quitting. The
preponderance of the evidence indicates that the claimant became frustrated with her
regular job duties and quit. The Board does not find that the claimant quit her
employment due to a cause which would reasonably impel the average, able-bodied,
qualified worker to give up employment. Further, the claimant did not speak to
Levato or Norman about her concerns prior to quitting, and as such did not take
appropriate steps to address her concerns prior to quitting her employment.
Therefore, the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in Appeal No. 2013-AT-12764 is
affirmed on the finding that the claimant voluntarily left last work without good cause
connected with the work.
Buck argues on appeal that the order given to her by Levato to go to the dining room
rather than distribute medication would have caused her to violate the Arkansas Nurse
Practice Act, and she therefore had no choice but to leave her employment. Buck contends
that this constituted good cause to leave her employment and she should not be denied
unemployment benefits. She asserts that the Board’s reasoning is flawed because it misses the
point—she was asked to commit an unprofessional act by her supervisor, and that is the
5
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 685
relevant point. She contends that what she did or did not tell her supervisor about her
thought process is irrelevant. Buck cites Swain v. Director, 102 Ark. App. 171, 283 S.W.3d
603 (2008), for the proposition that an employee is not required to exhaust every possibility
to rectify mistreatment or abuse before leaving employment. However, there is no evidence
of mistreatment or abuse in this case. While Buck had been interrupted on several occasions
during her distribution of medications to handle other events and was behind at 5 p.m., when
she was told to go to the dining room, Buck never explained the situation to the
administrator, and she never asked for help in either distributing medication or supervising
the dinner meal. Buck was required to make reasonable efforts to preserve her job rights
before simply walking off the job, which the Board found that she did not do. There is
substantial evidence to support this conclusion.
Affirmed.
PITTMAN and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brian G. Brooks; and The Cruz Law Firm,
by: Kathy A. Cruz, for appellant.
Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellees.
6