Ideker v. LaCrescent Nursing Ctr., Inc., 207 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Ideker v. LaCrescent Nursing Ctr., Inc., 207 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. (minn, 1989-12-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc.
Minn. · 1989 · confidence medium
Ideker v. LaCrescent Nursing Center, Inc., 296 Minn. 240, 241 , 207 N.W.2d 713, 714 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gustafson v. IRC Industries
Minn. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Here, as in Flahave , the misconduct consisted of repeated failures to notify an employer of expected absences or tardiness, evidencing a “willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests * * * or a lack of concern by the employee for his job.” Flahave, 343 N.W.2d at 686 , quoting Ideker v. LaCresent Nursing Center, Inc., 296 Minn. 240, 241 , 207 N.W.2d 713, 714 (1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Psihos v. R & M Manufacturing
Minn. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
It occurs where the employee’s actions “demonstrate a lack of concern by the employee for his job.” Idecker v. La Crescent Nursing Center, Inc., 296 Minn. 240, 241 , 207 N.W.2d 713, 714 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Campbell v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
Minn. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
Misconduct occurs when an employee’s conduct “evinces a willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests or demonstrates a lack of concern by the employee for his job.” Ideker v. *805 LaCrescent Nursing Center, Inc., 296 Minn. 240, 241 , 207 N.W.2d 713, 714 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" Flahave v. Lang Meat Packing (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ideker v. LaCrescent Nursing Center, Inc., 296 Minn. 240 , 207 N.W.2d 713 (1973); Blom v. Madsen’s Enterprises, Inc., 298 Minn. 573 , 215 N.W.2d 791 (1974); Thurik v. Department of Economic Security, 288 N.W.2d 716 (Minn.1980).
examined Cited "see" Budding v. Iowa Department of Job Service (4×)
Iowa Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Idecker v. LaCrescent Nursing Center, Inc., 296 Minn. 240 , 207 N.W.2d 713 (1973).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Hulse v. Job Service North Dakota (4×)
N.D. · 1992 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare with Ideker v. LaCrescent Nursing Center, Inc., 296 Minn. 240 , 207 N.W.2d 713 (1973); Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review v. Tumolo, 25 Pa.Cmwlth. 264 , 360 A.2d 763 (1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JANET R. IDEKER AND ANOTHER
v.
LaCRESCENT NURSING CENTER, INC.
43844.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
May 18, 1973.
207 N.W.2d 713
1973 Minn. LEXIS 1187
Broeker, Bachman Heetland and R. Walter Bachman, Jr. , for relator. Page 241 Kenneth H. Price , for respondent employee. Warren Spannaus , Attorney General, Curtis Forslund , Solicitor General, Peter C. Andrews , Assistant Attorney General, and William A. Peters , Special Assistant Attorney General, for respondent commissioner.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

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.