Ideker v. LaCrescent Nursing Center, Inc.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1989, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hulse v. Job Service North Dakota (N.D. 1992)
- Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. (Minn. 1989)
- Flahave v. Lang Meat Packing (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- Budding v. Iowa Department of Job Service (Iowa Ct. App. 1983)
- Auger v. Gillette Co. (Minn. 1981)
- Mankato Lutheran Home v. Miller (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- Gustafson v. IRC Industries (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- Flannigan v. Meadow Lane Health Care Center (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- Campbell v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- Psihos v. R & M Manufacturing (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- Claims of Heilman v. United Dressed Beef Co. (Minn. 1978)
- Booher v. Transport Clearings of Twin Cities, Inc. (Minn. 1977)
- Moeller v. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Minn. 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Writ of certiorari upon the relation of the employer to review a decision of the commissioner of manpower services. The issue is whether claimant should be partially disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that she was discharged for “misconduct” within the meaning of Minn. St. 268.09, subd. 1(1). The commissioner, affirming the appeal tribunal, held that claimant was not subject to any disqualification from receiving benefits. We reverse.
Claimant was employed as a nurse’s aid in a private nursing home. Knowing that the use of harsh or unkind language in dealing with patients could subject her to immediate discharge, she used extremely hostile and harsh language on two separate occasions in expressing her dissatisfaction with a bed-ridden male patient’s failure to control his bodily functions. The commissioner, as did the appeal tribunal, concluded that this did not constitute “misconduct.”
We believe that the facts do not justify that conclusion. The test for determining whether a claimant’s conduct constitutes “misconduct” is whether the conduct evinces a willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests or demonstrates a lack of concern by the employee for his job. Tilseth v. Midwest Lbr. Co. 295 Minn. 372, 204 N. W. 2d 644 (1973). Applying this test, we hold that the commissioner erred in concluding that claimant should not be subject to any disqualification.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.