Daniel J. Meagher, Rochester, appellant pro se.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 10, 2010, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked as a registered nurse at a hospital for nearly nine years. He was terminated from his position after he, on two separate occasions, obtained refills of a patient's prescription medications without a physician's authorization in violation of the employer's established protocol. Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified him from receiving them on the ground that his employment was terminated for misconduct. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. The failure to comply with an employer's reasonable rules that has a detrimental effect on the employer's interest has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct ( see Matter of Sutton [ Albany Med. Ctr.-Commissioner of Labor], 84 A.D.3d 1621, 1622, 923 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2011]; Matter of Dzugas–Smith [ Commissioner of Labor], 60 A.D.3d 1178, 1178, 875 N.Y.S.2d 320 [2009] ). Here, claimant admitted to getting a patient's prescriptions filled without the physician's knowledge or approval in clear violation of the employer's policy as well as his professional code of conduct. Although he asserted that he did this after he was repeatedly unable to reach the physician and he had followed this practice on prior occasions, this does not, under the circumstances presented, excuse claimant's behavior, which subjected the employer to potential adverse consequences ( see Matter of Heintzleman [ Commissioner of Labor], 288 A.D.2d 742, 743, 732 N.Y.S.2d 490 [2001]; Matter of Smith [ Primecare Med.-Commissioner of Labor], 269 A.D.2d 654, 701 N.Y.S.2d 754 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 753, 711 N.Y.S.2d 155, 733 N.E.2d 227 [2000] ). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MERCURE, J.P., LAHTINEN, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ., concur.