Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Nancy
|
|
Last Name
|
Woodford
|
|
Decision Date
|
7/18/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0141-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital and Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Word Processor
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant established that the Division of Personnel abused its discretion in not seeking the creation of a Medical Transcriptionist classification.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Hayes v. W. Va. Dep’t of Natural Res., Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989); Oliver v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Bur. for Child Enforcement, Docket No. 00-HHR-361 (Apr. 5, 2001); W. Va. Dep’t of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 348, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993); Captain v. W. Va. Div. of Health, Docket No. 90-H-471 (Apr. 4, 1991); Moore v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 94-HHR-126 (Aug. 26, 1994); Celestine v. State Police, Docket No. 2009-0256-MAPS (May 4, 2009); Kyle v. W. Va. State Bd. of Rehab., Docket No. VR-88-006 (Mar. 28, 1989)
|
|
Keywords
|
Classification; Reallocation; Position Description Form; Job Duties; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant, holding the classification of Data Entry Operator 2, argues she should be classified as a Medical Transcriptionist, because there is no such classification, she contends that the Division of Personnel should create such classification. She argues in the alternative that she be classified as a Medical Records Assistant. Respondents argue that the standard of review is one of abuse of discretion and the discretion of whether to create a certain classification is broad. In addition, Grievant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that her duties and responsibilities fall more closely within the Medical Records Assistant classification than the Data Entry Operator 2. For reasons more fully set out below, this grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again