Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of esta blishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY S FOR APPELLANT : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : ANDREW DUTKANYCH III GREGORY F. ZOELLER WILLIAM M. KROWL Attorney General of Indiana Biesecker Dutkanych & Macer Evansville, Indiana KATHY BRADLEY Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, In diana


## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

KATHLEEN T. MERCIER, ) ) Appellant

- Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) No. 93 A0 2

- 1107

- EX

- 719 ) REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA ) DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE ) DEVELOPMENT and HSS SYSTEMS, INC. ) ) Appellee s - Respondents. )

A PPEAL FROM THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Cause No. 11

- R

- 2359

February 14, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION

– NOT FOR PUBLICATION2

BAKER, Judge Appellant

- p etitioner Kathleen T. Mercier appeals the decision of the Review Board o f the Department of Workforce Development (Review Board) that Mercier was discharged from her position a s registrar at a hospital for just cause. Mercier contends that she was improperly denied unemployment benefits because the evidence established that s he had no notice that her actions that involved the cutting and pasting of patient information , including the patient’s signature, on to a release for treatment or consent form were improper because one of her supervisors had allegedly engaged in the same

c onduct without any consequences . Concluding that the Review Board properly discharged Mercier for just cause and denied her unemployment benefits, we affirm.
FACTS Mercier began working for HSS, a regional hospital in Terre Haute, on November 3, 2003. As the hospital registrar, Mercier was responsible for registering patients , calculating benefits, verifying insurance information , and obtaining the patients’ necessary consent for treatment at the hospital. On November 2 9, 2010, Mercier’s team lead er , Cat hy Hayworth, issued Mercier an “error” for failing to obtain the signature, initials, and the date of an admitted patient on a consent form. Appellant’s App. p. 6

- 7. Thereafter, Mercier accessed the hospital’s computer system and recognized that the pati ent in question had previously been admitted to the hospital. Mercier noted that at the time of the previous admittance, the3

patient had fully executed a release for treatment. Mercier copied the authorization from the previous consent form , cut out the patient’s signature , affixed it to the blank consent form, and copied the form to make it appear as though the patient had signed the original consent form. Mercier claimed that Hayworth told her that she “herself often previously [had] taken these action s whenever she had discovered missing signatures on other documents.” Id. at 9

- 10, 13

- 14, 16

- 17. Mercier informed the Quality Assurance Team Leader at HSS that she corrected the problem. However, Mercier was subsequently discharged from her position by the hospital’s patient access director because of her actions in pasting the signature of the patient from one form onto the other. Mercier applied for unemployment benefits and a claims deputy determined that Mercier had not been discharged for just cau se and was eligible for unemployment benefits. Thereafter, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) affirmed the deputy’s decision regarding Mercier’s entitlement to unemployment benefits. However, on June 21, 2011, the Review Board reversed the ALJ’s decision and determined that Mercier was discharged for just cause and was , therefore, not entitled to unemployment benefits. The Review Board relied on the provisions of Indiana Code section 22

- 4

- 15

- 1(d)(9), finding that Mercier committed a breach of duty “in con nect ion with work which is reasonably owed an employer by an employee.” More particularly, the Review Board determined that4

A reasonable employee would understand that copying a patient’s signature, cutting it out to fit onto a blank consent form and ta ping it into position, and then copying the form to make it clear that t he pat ient had signed the document was a violation of the patient’s rights and could cause the employee’s term ination from employ ment. Appellee’s App. p. 2. Mercier now appeals.
DI SCUSSION AND DECISION In accordance with Indiana Code section 22

- 4

- 17

- 12 (a), the Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act provides that any decision of the Review B oard shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. When the Review Board’ s deci sion is challenged as contrary to law, we are limited to a two

- part inquiry into the “sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision” and the “sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.” I.C

. § 22

- 4

- 17

- 12 (f). Under this standar d, we are called upon to review: (1) determinations of specific or basic underlying facts; (2) conclusions or inferences from those facts, or determinations of ultimate facts; and (3) conclusions of law. McClai n v. Rev

. Bd. of the Ind. Dep’ t of Workforce Dev. , 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1317 (Ind. 1998). Review of the findings of basic fact is subject to a “substantial evidence” standard of review

. Id. In this analysis, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses and consider only the e vide nce most favorable to the Board’ s findings. General Motors Corp . v. Rev

. Bd. of the Ind. Dep’ t of Workforce Dev. , 671 N.E.2d 493, 496 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996 ). We will reverse the decision only if there is no substantia l5

evidence to support the Review B oard’ s findings. KBI, Inc . v. Rev

. Bd. of the Ind. Dep’ t of Workforce Dev. , 656 N.E.2d 842, 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
In short, we review the Review Board’s findings regarding basi c facts for “substantial evidence,” ultimate facts for “reasonableness,” and conclusions of law for
correctness. M & J Management, Inc. v. Rev. Bd. o f the Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev. , 711 N.E.2d 58, 61 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). In this case, while Mercier argues that the record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that her ac tions were unreasonable , she admitted that when she was notified that she had failed to obtain the patient ’s signature, she cut and pasted a previous signature from the patient to the consent form that was missing the signature. Tr. p. 20. Mercier ackno wledged her receipt of the hospital’s policies and procedures regarding
p atient consent, and she a dmitted that its policy does not condone forging a patient’s

consent. Id. at 10. The hospital’s policy manual

— that had been supplied to Mercier

— stated more than once that if patient consent could not be obtained, treatment could not be rendered “unless it is an emergency.” Tr. p. 19; Ex. 12, 14

- 15. Here, Mercier mis represented on the hospital’s documents that a patient had
consented to treatment , and ther e was no showing that an emergency existed. One can certainly foresee that such conduct would have exposed the hospital to liability had the patient’s treatment gone awry. For all these reasons, the Review Board reasonably conclude d that Mercier breache d a duty owed to the hospital and was discharged from her employment for just cause. See Hehr v. Rev. Bd. o f the Ind. Employment Sec. Div. , 5346

N.E.2d 1122, 1126 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (recognizing that no reasonable employee could sincerely believe that h e or she was entitled to falsify patient consent forms without
consequences )

. Finally, we note that while Mercier argues that the Review Board failed to consider evidence that one of her supervisors had alleged ly engaged in the same conduct without any c onsequences from HSS, the Review B oard did not ignore this evidenc e. Rather, it found Mercier’s self

- serving testimony “non

- cr e dible.” Appellee’s App. p. 2. In other words, the Review Board apparently determined that Mercier’s testimony that
she could f

alsify a patient consent form because there allegedly had been an instance of it in the past by another employee was not credible. Appellee’s App. p. 1

- 2. Mercier has failed to demonstrate that the Review Board’s credibil ity finding should be disturbed

. In essence, Mercier is asking us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. McHugh v. Rev. Bd. o f the Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev. , 842 N.E.2d 436, 440 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The judgment of the Review Boa rd is affirmed. DARDEN, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.