Bedford Care Center of Marion, LLC v. Cenither Nicholson
2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 38
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Nicholson, a CNA, injured her back in 2008 at East Mississippi State Hospital; employer paid for an ER visit and she missed a few days.
- In September 2012 Bedford Care hired Nicholson; on a post‑offer form she answered “no” to questions asking whether she had ever been injured on the job or filed a workers’ compensation claim.
- A later personnel-audit revealed the 2008 workers’ compensation incident; Bedford Care terminated Nicholson in May 2013 for falsifying application information per company policy.
- Nicholson filed for unemployment benefits; an ALJ and the Board of Review denied benefits, finding disqualifying misconduct (intentional falsification).
- The Circuit Court reversed, concluding Nicholson did not intentionally falsify the application because she misunderstood the questions about workers’ compensation and prior injury.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court, holding the record lacked substantial evidence that Nicholson acted with the willful or wanton intent required to disqualify her from unemployment benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Nicholson's Argument | Bedford Care's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inaccurate answers on an application constituted misconduct disqualifying Nicholson from unemployment benefits | Nicholson contends she misunderstood the questions (thought workers’ comp meant receiving money; did not view ER visit as a claim) and lacked intent to deceive | Bedford Care contends the false answers were willful falsification of material application information justifying discharge and disqualification | Held: No disqualifying misconduct; misunderstanding insufficient to show willful/wanton disregard of employer’s interest |
| Standard and burden of proof for disqualification where employer alleges misconduct | Nicholson implicitly argues employer must show intentional misconduct by clear, substantial, convincing evidence | Bedford Care argues it met burden by proving false answers and company policy that falsification is grounds for termination | Held: Employer bears burden; record lacked substantial, clear, and convincing evidence of willful/wanton misconduct despite supporting termination under company policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Ratcliff v. Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n, 754 So. 2d 595 (affirming denial of benefits where applicant intentionally omitted prior employment)
- Wheeler v. Arriola, 408 So. 2d 1381 (scope of judicial review of Board factual findings)
- Over the Rainbow Daycare v. Miss. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 188 So. 3d 1249 (employer’s burden to prove misconduct by clear and convincing evidence)
- Acy v. Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n, 960 So. 2d 592 (employee conduct may justify discharge but not necessarily disqualifying misconduct)
- Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n v. Woods, 938 So. 2d 359 (violation of company policy can justify termination without constituting disqualifying misconduct)