Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Kristen
|
|
Last Name
|
Thacker
|
|
Decision Date
|
9/7/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-1422-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Mildred Mitchell-Bateman Hospital
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Health Service Worker
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant’s employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 15-1-22.1; W. Va. Code. §§ 9-2-6 and 29-6-19; W. Va. Code § 55-7E-3(a)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Graley v. Parkways Econ. Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 91-PEDTA-225 (Dec. 23, 1991); Crites v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2011-0890-DHHR (Jan. 24, 2012); Kanawha County Bd. of Educ. v. Fulmer, 719 S.E.2d 375, 380-381, 228 W. Va. 207, 212-213, 2011; Coleman v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-318 (Jan. 27, 2004); Justice v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Docket No. 2018-0362-DEP (Aug. 17, 2018)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Gross Misconduct; Employee Locker; Prescription Medication; Policy; Investigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent dismissed Grievant for “gross misconduct” after discovering that she and a coworker were sharing a footlocker at the hospital which contained a significant amount of prescription and over-the-counter medications. The two employees were dismissed for allegedly violating policies and statutes related to proper storage of medication as well as proper labeling of prescription drug containers. Grievant was additionally cited for refusing to participate in an OIC investigation of the incident.
The policies and laws cited by Respondent applied to medications stored by the hospital for patient use, as well as medicine dispensed and labeled by pharmacy personnel. The vast majority of the medication in the footlocker was being stored by Grievant for personal use. The policies and statutes did not apply. Additionally, Respondent did not prove that Grievant refused to participate in the investigation. The only thing Respondent was able to prove was that Grievant did not report that a skin care cream, which had previously been prescribed for a patient who died, was not properly disposed of. Grievant was not charged with that violation and it would not constitute “gross misconduct” if she had been.
|
Back to Results
Search Again