ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS 


DIVISION II 
No. E078-262 


ANDREA LEMOINE 
APPELLANT 

V. 
DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS 
DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE 
SERVICES 

APPELLEE 

Opinion Delivered October 1, 2008 

APPEAL FROM ARKANSAS BOARD 
OF REVIEW [NO. 2007-BR-1583] 

AFFIRMED 

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Chief Judge 

The Arkansas Board of Review found that the appellant in this unemployment 
compensation case was discharged for misconduct in connection with her work and was thus 
disqualified for unemployment benefits. Appellant argues on appeal that the Board erred in 
so finding because there is no substantial evidence that she was discharged for misconduct. 
We affirm. 

On appeal, the findings of the Board of Review are affirmed if they are supported by 
substantial evidence. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Director, 93 Ark. App. 303, 218 
S.W.3d 317 (2005). Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 
as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. We review the evidence in the light most favorable 
to the Board’s findings. Id. Even where there is evidence upon which the Board might have 
reached a different conclusion, appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the 
Board could reasonably reach its decision upon evidence before it. Id. 

An individual is disqualified for unemployment benefits if discharged from her last 
work for misconduct in connection with the work. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(1) 
(Supp. 2007). If the employee is discharged for misconduct in connection with the work on 
account of dishonesty, the disqualification remains in effect until the employee has ten weeks 
of employment at wages that at least equal the employee’s benefit amount. Ark. Code Ann. 
§ 11-10-514(b)(1) (Supp. 2007). In order for an employee’s action to constitute misconduct 
so as to disqualify her, the action must be a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, an act 
of wanton or willful disregard of the standard of behavior that the employer has a right to 
expect of its employees. Sadler v. Stiles, 22 Ark. App. 117, 735 S.W.2d 708 (1987). 

We think that the Board reasonably could find that appellant was guilty of such 
misconduct in this case. Although the evidence was conflicting, it is our duty to review it in 
the light most favorable to the Board’s findings. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Director, 
supra. Viewed in that light, the record shows that appellant was employed as a hospice nurse. 
Her duties included visiting terminally ill patients in their homes, monitoring their conditions 
and vital signs, providing the patients with palliative care, arranging for prescription and 
provision of needed medication, and reporting her findings and actions to the central office 
of the hospice program. Appellant was provided with a laptop computer to chart her findings 
and transmit her reports. Appellant was terminated after hospice officials learned that she filed 
a report of a visit, including visual findings such as dry, thin, fragile skin appearance and 
cyanotic nail beds, several hours in advance of her actual visit. Although appellant testified 
that she obtained the information in a telephone call to the patient, the fact remains that her 
contact and findings were reported as a home visit. On this record, we cannot say that the 
evidence is insufficient to support a finding that appellant dishonestly falsified a report. Nor 
do we agree that such misconduct, given her employer’s duty to care for patients rendered 
vulnerable to exploitation by virtue of terminal illness, did not demonstrate wanton or willful 
disregard of the standard of behavior that the employer has a right to expect of its employees. 

Affirmed. 

MARSHALL and HEFFLEY, JJ., agree.