This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A16-1176 Noelle L. Norris, Relator,

vs. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research, Respondent, Department of Employment a nd Economic Development, Respondent. Filed February 27, 2017 Affirmed Reilly, Judge Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 34480318-3 Noelle L. Norris, Rochester, Minnesota (pro se relator) Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Re search, Rochester, Minnesota (respondent employer) Lee B. Nelson, Keri A. Phillip s, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department) Considered and decided by Hooten, Pr esiding Judge; Reilly , Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.2 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY , Judge Relator Noelle L. Norris challenges th e determination of an unemployment-law judge (the ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemploymen t benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. Be cause substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s determination that relator committed empl oyment misconduct by falsifying work documentation, we affirm. FACTS Relator challenges the ULJ’s determination that she was discharged for employment misconduct. At the time of her discharge, relator was employed as a pharmacy technician with respondent Mayo Foundation for Medi cal Education and Research (Mayo). Her duties included performing a monthly check of an automated pharmaceutical-dispensing machine, known as a pyxis machin e, located in an inpatient area of the hospital. In January 2016, relator submitted a checklist indicating th at she performed a monthly check of the pyxis machine. Mayo later discovered th at relator did not ch eck the machine and terminated her employment for falsifying wo rk documentation in violation of Mayo’s employment policies. Relator subsequently applied for un employment benefits. The Minnesota Department of Employment a nd Economic Development (DEED) determined that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employee misconduct “for logging work that was not performed.” Relator appealed DEED’s determination. The ULJ condu cted a telephone hearing at which relator testified on her3 own behalf, and a technician su pervisor and a human-resources advisor testified on behalf of Mayo. The ULJ issued a d ecision, determining that relato r was discharged for employee misconduct and was therefore ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Relator requested reconsideration of the UL J’s decision, which was denied. This certiorari appeal follows. D E C I S I O N 1. Substantial evidence supports the UL J’s finding that relator committed conduct constituting employee misconduct. When reviewing an unemployment insura nce benefits decision this court may affirm, remand the case for further proceedings, or reverse and modify the decision if the substantial rights of the relator have been prejudiced because, among other things, the decision is unsupported by substa ntial evidence in view of th e entire record as submitted. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2016). An applic ant who is discharged for employment misconduct is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4 (2016). “Whether an employee engaged in cond uct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc ., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 20 11). Whether an employee co mmitted a particular act is a question of fact viewed in the light most fa vorable to the ULJ’s decision and affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). But we review de novo the le gal question of whether the particular act committed by the employee constitu tes employment misconduct. Id

.4 Employment misconduct is de fined as “any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job that displa ys clearly: (1) a seri ous violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee; or (2) a substantial lack of concern for the employment.” Minn. St at. § 268.095 subd. 6 (2016). Refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests ordinarily amounts to employment misconduct. Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp ., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002). The ULJ found that Mayo had “the right to reasonably expect that employees will properly complete duties and that they will properly report duties completed.” The ULJ found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that relator “seriously violated this expectation” by knowin gly submitting false doc umentation. The UL J determined that “[k]nowingly turning in documentation indica ting that she had completed tasks that she had not was a serious violation of the employer’s reasonable expectations [and] showed a substantial lack of concern for the employment.” We agree. Mayo adopted a policy articulating a set of guidelines for the corrective-action process to be followed when an employee’s performance interferes with Mayo’s operations or patient care. Falsificati on of data and documentation is “considered serious at Mayo” because it “involve[s] a willful disregard of expectations that may have an immediate negative impact” on Mayo’s goals or “may put i ndividuals or the organization at risk,” and provides grounds for immediate terminati on. Relator conceded that she submitted documentation claiming that she performed a monthly check of the pyxis machine when she did not perform this duty . Relator’s intentional fals ification of documentation5 displayed “a serious violation of the standa rds of behavior” that Mayo had a right to reasonably expect from her. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a)(1). Substantial evidence in the record supports the ULJ’s de termination that relator is ineligible to receive unemployment benef its because she committe d employee misconduct, and appellant has not established reversible error. 2. The ULJ did not abuse its discretion by declining to reconsider its ruling. Relator challenges the ULJ’s order denying reconsideration. “A reviewing court accords deference to a ULJ’s decision not to hold an additional hear ing and will reverse that decision only for an abuse of discretion.” Skarhus , 721 N.W.2d at 345. When determining whether to grant a request for rec onsideration, the ULJ “must not consider any evidence that was not submitted at the [eviden tiary] hearing,” but must order an additional evidentiary hearing to consider new evidence if it “would likely change the outcome of the decision and there was good ca use for not having previously submitted that evidence.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(c) (2016). Relator’s request for reconsid eration fails to satisfy this test. Relator argues that reconsideration is appropriate because she want s to “correct the record” regarding the pyxis checklist itself. The ULJ reje cted this argument, holding that any additional witness testimony “would not change the outcome of the decision.” Relator’s termination was based on the filing of false documentation, and she has not provide d cogent evidence challenging that finding. Moreover, relator has not established good cause for failing to submit her proposed evidence at the evidenti ary hearing. Relator does not explain how additional information about the pyxis check list would alter the conclusion that she6 intentionally falsified documenta tion. We therefore discern no abuse of discretion in the ULJ’s decision to deny relator’s re quest for reconsideration. 3. Relator is not otherwis e entitled to relief. Relator challenges the ULJ’s determination on a number of additional grounds. First, relator argues that Mayo did not have a “specific policy” detailing the importance of the pyxis checklist and she theref ore carried out her employment duties in a manner she considered “reasonable under th e circumstances.” Under the good-faith judgment exception, if judgment is require d, a good-faith error in judgment is not employment misconduct. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(b)(6 ). The good-faith judgment exception is inapplicable here. Acts inconsiste nt with an employee’s training or established procedure are not considered errors of judgment. See Ress v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., Inc ., 448 N.W.2d 519, 525 (Minn. 1989 ). The pyxis checklist itemize s 14 separate maintenance functions that an employee is expected to perform. Relator ackno wledged that she was familiar with this checklist and had used the same checklis t “for quite a long time.” Relator’s intentional falsification of the chec klist does not constitute an error of judgment and she is not entitled to relief on that basis. Relator next asserts that she was harasse d during her employm ent and did not get the support she needed from management. The ULJ found that “[ t]he only harassment [relator] mentioned was disciplin e she received. Although [s he] may have disagreed with the discipline, that does not sh ow that she was discharged fo r a reason other than what was provided by [Mayo].” On appe al, relator fails to support her harassment allegations with relevant facts or legal authority, and we consider them forfeited. See State v. Myhre , 8757 N.W.2d 799, 806 (Minn. 2016) (deeming forfeited issues that are raised in a brief but lack adequate factual support or legal argument). Lastly, relator claims that the ULJ was biased against her be cause the ULJ gave greater weight to the testim ony of Mayo’s witnesses. The ULJ heard testimony from relator and from the employer’s two witnesses and found th e evidence produced by Mayo to be more credible than the evidence produced by relator. We defer to the ULJ’s credibility determinations when they are supported by substa ntial evidence and the ULJ sets forth a valid reason for cred iting or discreditin g the witness. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(a) (2016) (stating that the ULJ must set forth the reason for crediting or discrediting testimony when credibility “has a significant effect on the outcome of a decision”); see also Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc. , 726 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Minn. App. 2007) (noting that we defer to the credib ility determination made by the ULJ when it is supported by substantial evidence and provi des adequate reasons for the determination). Here, the ULJ fully credited Mayo’s witne sses because their testimony was based on firsthand knowledge, was consistent, and was logical. The r ecord supports this determination. In sum, we affirm the ULJ’s decision th at relator was discharged for employee misconduct and therefore ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Affirmed.