COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67723 DONALD W. ROCHE : : Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION : : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 4, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CV-262708 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: GEORGE W. JOSEPH JR. (#0000738) 12211 MADISON AVENUE LAKEWOOD, OHIO 44107 For Defendant-Appellee, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation: JOY M. MACIEJEWSKI (#0059824) BAKER & HOSTETLER 3200 NATIONAL CITY CENTER 1900 EAST NINTH STREET CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114-3485 For Appellee, Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services: LEE FISHER Attorney General of Ohio CHARLETT BUNDY (#0051842) Assistant Attorney General STATE OFFICE BUILDING,12TH FLOOR 615 WEST SUPERIOR AVENUE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44113-1899 - 2 - 2 SPELLACY, P.J.: Donald Roche filed a claim for unemployment compensation after being discharged by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review ("Board") found the Cleveland Clinic discharged Roche for "just cause" and denied his claim. Roche appealed to the court of common pleas, which affirmed the Board's decision. Roche now appeals to this court raising one assignment of error: THE FINDINGS OF THE BUREAU OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND CONTRARY TO LAW. The following evidence was adduced at a hearing held before the Board: The Cleveland Clinic discharged Roche, an inpatient financial counselor, after a fourth incident in a progressive discipline process containing four steps: verbal counseling, written warning, suspension, and discharge. At each step, except for the last, Roche signed written explanations of the grounds for discipline. He chose not to write a rebuttal to, or appeal from, any of the steps. In February 1992, Roche received verbal counseling for instructing a patient to fill out a blank form to which Roche had signed a doctor's name. Roche denied instructing the patient to fill out the form and testified that financial counselors routinely signed doctors' names. Roche acknowledged, however, that it was the first time he had signed a doctor's name to a blank form. - 3 - 3 In March 1992, Roche received a written warning for having a higher than allowed error rate. Roche blames his error rate on problems within the financial department. In June 1992, Roche received a three-day suspension for refusing to promptly process an emergency admission. Roche testified that he had only indicated that he could not process the admission immediately and that he eventually processed it. On October 23, 1992, Roche was discharged for improperly processing a surgery patient. On October 12, 1992, Roche received the patient's file indicating Dr. Brooks had scheduled surgery for October 23, 1992, and that the Bureau of Workers Compensation had denied authorization for the surgery. On October 14, 1992, Roche instructed the patient to contact the Bureau of Workers Compensa- tion and informed Dr. Brooks's secretary that the Bureau of Workers Compensation had denied authorization for the surgery. On October 20, 1992, Dr. Brooks's secretary told Roche that she thought Donna Gross, an outpatient financial counselor, had stated the Bureau of Workers Compensation had authorized the surgery. Later that day, Gross left a message with Roche's voice mail stating Dr. Brooks's secretary had been wrong. She further told Roche to contact the pre-certification department to find out why the Bureau of Workers Compensation was denying authorization for the surgery, inform Dr. Brooks's office that the surgery was still unauthorized, and discuss with the patient the financial risk of undergoing surgery without insurance and the option of postponing the surgery. - 4 - 4 On October 22, 1992, when the patient arrived for pre-surgery testing the Bureau of Workers Compensation had still not authorized the surgery. At some point that day, Roche entered into the patient's computerized file a message stating that Gross had told Dr. Brooks's office that the Bureau of Workers Compensation had authorized the surgery and that he had told Dr. Brooks's office the surgery was unauthorized. Lourene Denkos, Roche's supervisor, and Gross testified that failing to follow through with obtaining authorization from the Bureau of Workers Compensation and failing to keep Dr. Brooks's office informed placed the patient at financial risk and prevented Dr. Brooks from scheduling a different patient for the reserved surgical time slot. Gross also testified that the October 22, 1992, computer entry was inconsistent with her October 20, 1992, voice mail message. A court of common pleas must affirm the Board's decision unless it is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the weight of the evidence. R.C. 4141.28(O). We review a ruling by the court of common pleas on an appeal from the Board for abuse of discretion. Lee v. Nick Mayer Lincoln (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 306, 308-309. "The term 'abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." State ex rel. McMaster v. School Emp. Retirement Sys. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 130, 133. - 5 - 5 A claimant discharged for "just cause" is ineligible for unemployment benefits. R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a). "Just cause" is "that which, to an ordinarily intelligent person, is a justifiable reason for doing or not doing a particular act." Warrensville Hts. v. Jennings (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 206, 207, citing Irvine v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review (1985), 19 Ohio St. 3d 15, 17. Reviewing the record, we find no abuse of discretion by the court of common pleas in its decision to affirm the Board's denial of Roche's unemployment compensation claim. Accordingly, Roche's assignment of error is not well taken. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - 6 It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DONALD C. NUGENT, J. and ANN DYKE, J., CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY PRESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time .