MISCONDUCT, Incomplete medical information, Uncooperative attitude
CITE AS: Ries v Michigan State University, No. 85604 (Mich App November 14, 1985).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Esther V. Ries
Employer: Michigan State University
Docket No: B84 02891 96713W
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: An employee who provides medical documentation and attends a medical appointment set up with a third party physician will not be found to have engaged in misconduct solely because the information was not complete and her attitude was not cooperative.
FACTS: The claimant had been absent on a medical leave of absence. While on the medical leave the claimant was requested to submit physician's statements relative to her status. The notes provided by the claimant's physician were brief and did not provide all the information the employer had requested. Subsequently the employer arranged to have the claimant examined by an area physician and had the claimant transported to the physician's office, but the doctor refused to conduct an examination after the claimant advised him she was only there at the employer's insistence. As a result the claimant was discharged.
DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for benefits under the misconduct provision of the MES Act, Section 29(1)(b) based on the two instances of alleged misconduct detailed in the record. Remanded for further fact-finding regarding other instances of alleged misconduct.
RATIONALE: The physicians involved in the claimant's care failed to provide the information desired by the employer and failed to examine the claimant. At no time did the claimant refuse to provide the information asked for or to submit to the examination requested. "Although claimant may not have acted properly and her actions may have been grounds for discharge, these actions do not rise to the level of 'misconduct' as defined in Carter."
NOTE: After the Mich. App. decision and remand described above, this matter was twice considered by the Menominee Circuit Court as to whether claimant was subject to disqualification under a "series of infractions" theory. It was concluded she was not "as her emotional problems were the reason for her termination, her actions could not rise to misconduct as define in Carter,". B84-02891-RM1-103180.