PER CURIAM.
Med-Staff, Inc. appeals an award of unemployment benefits to its former employee. It claims the employee's rough treatment of a nursing home resident constituted misconduct. The Iowa Employment Appeal Board rejected Med-Staff's claim because the employee's actions, while unsatisfactory, did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct. Finding no basis for reversal, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Javier Gomez was formerly employed as a certified nursing assistant at Med-Staff, which provides services to nursing homes and other similar facilities. Med-Staff has a policy in place whereby an employee is subject to termination if barred from two facilities. In early 1996, he was barred from a facility for inappropriate behavior involving a female staff member. On April 24, 1999, Gomez was accused of roughly handling a resident at a facility after being asked to clean the sheets on the resident's bed. When the resident asked for her walker, Gomez threw it at her, roughly pulled her up from the bed, turned her, and pushed her into a chair. The resident then slapped Gomez. Gomez left the unit and was subsequently barred from the facility. Med-Staff discharged Gomez on April 28, 1999, but reinstated him on May 14, 1999. Gomez turned down job offers from Med-Staff, and he went on a leave of absence on July 2, 1999. He voluntarily terminated his employment on October 3, 1999.
Gomez appealed from an unemployment insurance decision finding him ineligible to receive benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded Gomez two weeks of unemployment benefits, for the weeks ending May 8 and May 15, but denied benefits thereafter. The ALJ found in part that Med-Staff failed to prove disqualifying misconduct by Gomez. The ALJ found Gomez adamantly denied the abuse, and concluded the single incident was insufficient to sustain a misconduct finding. Gomez and Med-Staff appealed, and the Iowa Employment Appeal Board affirmed the ALJ's decision.
Med-Staff filed a petition for judicial review. The district court affirmed the decision of the Employment Appeal Board. The court noted that Med-Staff rehired Gomez only twenty days after the incident, following its own internal investigation, and subsequently offered him over thirty opportunities to work. It also pointed out that the Iowa Department of Inspection and Appeals issued a finding of "unfounded" after completing its own investigation of the incident.
Med-Staff appeals. It contends the agency finding that Gomez did not commit misconduct is unsupported by substantial evidence, is affected by error of law, and is arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
II. The Law
The Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, Iowa Code chapter 17A, governs our review of unemployment benefits cases. Dico, Inc. v. Iowa Employment Appeal Bd., 576 N.W.2d 352, 354 (Iowa 1998). A district court on judicial review acts in an appellate capacity to correct errors of law on the part of the agency. Holland Bros. Constr. Co. v. Iowa State Bd. of Tax Review, 611 N.W.2d 495, 499 (Iowa 2000). When we review a district court decision on judicial review, we apply the standards of Iowa Code section 17A.19(8) (1999) to the agency action to determine whether our conclusions are the same as those of the district court. Lee v. Employment Appeal Bd., 616 N.W.2d 661, 664 (Iowa 2000).
The issue here is whether substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that there was no disqualifying misconduct by Gomez. We must determine whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record made before the agency when that record is viewed as a whole. Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(f). We are bound by agency findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence. Norland v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 412 N.W.2d 904, 913 (Iowa 1987). Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to reach the same finding. Id.
A claimant is disqualified from unemployment benefits if the claimant has been discharged for misconduct. Iowa Code § 96.5(2). Misconduct is
a deliberate act or omission by a worker which constitutes a material breach of the duties and obligations arising out of such worker's contract of employment. Misconduct as the term is used in the disqualification provision [is] limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interest as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of employees, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree of recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed misconduct within the meaning of the statute.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 871-24.32(1)(a). The employer bears the burden of proving a claimant is disqualified for benefits because of misconduct. Reigelsberger v. Employment Appeal Bd., 500 N.W.2d 64, 66 (Iowa 1993). Misconduct serious enough to warrant the discharge of an employee is not necessarily serious enough to justify a denial of benefits. Breithaupt v. Employment Appeal Bd., 453 N.W.2d 532, 535 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990).
III. Application of the Law to the Facts
We find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's finding that Gomez's conduct was not severe enough to rise to the level of misconduct justifying a denial of unemployment benefits. Med-Staff rehired Gomez within twenty days of the incident. Med-Staff thereafter offered Gomez multiple opportunities to work. Med-Staff obviously believed it could safely send Gomez to care for other residents. We agree with the district court that Gomez was guilty of unsatisfactory conduct, but not misconduct that would justify a denial of unemployment benefits.
We also conclude that the agency's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or affected by an error of law.
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
This is not a published opinion.
Comments