Database Search Result Details

First Name Crystal
Last Name Stamper
Decision Date 8/29/2017
Docket Number 2017-1515-DHHR
ALJ CHL
Respondent Department of Health and Human Resources/Lakin Hospital
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Housekeeper
Topics Termination; Dismissal
Primary Issues Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant abandoned her job which would constitute good cause for her dismissal.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2008); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.2.c. (2016)
Related Cases Ramey v. W. Va. Dep't of Health, Docket No. H-88-005 (Dec. 6, 1988); Petry v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-20-380 (Mar. 18, 1997); Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Co. Cir. Ct., Civil Action No. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Oakes v. W. Va. Dep’t of Fin. & Admin., 164 W. Va. 384, 264 S.E.2d 151 (1980); Guine v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 149 W. Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 (1965); Sloan v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 215 W. Va. 657, 661, 600 S.E.2d 554, 558 (2004); Jones v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Pine v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 95-HHR-066 (May 12, 1995); Lanehart v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-23-235 (Dec. 29, 1995); Perdue v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-050 (Feb. 4, 1994); Burchell v. Bd. of Trustees, Marshall Univ., Docket No. 97-BOT-011 (Aug. 29, 1997)
Keywords Termination; Job Abandonment; Notice; Good Cause; Return to Work; Dismissed; Absent
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was employed by Respondent at Lakin Hospital. Grievant’s medical practitioner released her to return to work, but did not complete the correct form. While initially there may have been a misunderstanding between Grievant and the hospital assistant administrator about the date she was to return to work, the evidence demonstrated that Grievant was eventually given a clear directive to return to work, she failed to do so, and ceased communications with that administrator and her employer. Thereafter, Grievant was dismissed for job abandonment. Grievant denies abandoning her job, and asserts that the assistant administrator told her that she could not return to work without the correct form completed by her medical practitioner. Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant abandoned her position, which constitutes good cause for her dismissal. Therefore, this grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again