Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc.
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (1976) Bluebook Citation: Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (1976) FACTS: (Only list the relevant facts that apply to the issue). The Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. terminated Mrs. Mitchell on June 4, 1974 for ‘misconduct.’ On June 12, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits and was initially disqualified from seven weeks of benefits by the Unemployment Security Commission. Mrs. Mitchell filed an appeal, the Appeal Tribunal reversed the Unemployment Security Commission’s decision and Mrs. Mitchell’s benefits were reinstated. On September 13, 1974, the Lovington Good Samaritan Center appealed the decision and the Commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal and reinstated the seven week disqualification period. Mrs. Mitchell then applied for and was granted certiorari (a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court) from the decision and ordered the benefits reinstated. ISSUE: (One or two sentences about what the case is trying to answer – should be in the form of a question).
Were the actions of Mrs. Mitchell constituted misconduct under § 59-90-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953? RULE: (What statute or case law and brief summary was used). ‘Misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the misconduct subsection of its unemployment compensation act and found no statutory definition of misconduct and formulated their own definition. The State of New Mexico adopts that same definition. APPLICATION: (Apply the rules to the facts). The fact of the case is that Mrs. Mitchell willfully disregarded the interests of the Lovington Good Samaritan Center. Although each separate incident may not have been sufficient in itself to constitute misconduct, taken in totality, Mrs. Mitchell’s conduct deviated sufficiently to classify it as misconduct under the definition formulated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941). CONCLUSION: (How the court decided this case). In conclusion, the District Court of Bernalillo County reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered it to reinstate the benefits to Mrs. Mitchell.