Kowalski v. Henry Ford Macomb Hospital
Digest No. 12.143
Cite as: Kowalski v. Henry Ford Macomb Hospital, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued January 27, 2012 (Docket No. 2011-2690-AE).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Robert P. Kowalski
Employer: Henry Ford Macomb Hospital
Docket no.: 2011-2690-AE
Date of decision: January 27, 2012
HOLDING: It is not a willful and wanton disregard of an employer’s interests to repeatedly access confidential patient information without explicit authorization when (1) the employer had a vague and discretionary policy regarding access to the confidential information, and (2) the employee, in the course of accessing information related to his job duties, is unable to avoid viewing confidential information unrelated to his assigned tasks.
FACTS: Claimant (appellant) worked as a regulatory documentation clerk at the Henry Ford Macomb Hospital. As a documentation clerk, claimant used a computer system (the MIDAS system) to enter patient Medicaid information. Although claimant had unrestricted access to the MIDAS computer suite and all its associated confidential patient information, the employer claimed that claimant was only authorized to view information on two particular MIDAS screens. The employer maintained that claimant was only to access information that he had a “need to know.” Claimant testified to his belief that he was authorized to view information in any part of the MIDAS system in order to complete job-related tasks. After claimant submitted a report to his supervisor that contained patient information outside the scope of claimant’s supposed purview, a computer audit was initiated to investigate claimant’s MIDAS access history. The audit revealed that claimant had accessed MIDAS screens with information that the employer considered unrelated to his job duties. Claimant testified at a hearing before an ALJ that he had accessed the information on these screens in order to perform job-related tasks. Although the ALJ found that “the employer failed to establish that [claimant] willfully, wantonly, and intentionally . . . disregard[ed] . . . standards of behavior which the employer had the right to expect,” the Board of Review reversed the decision. The Board based their decision on a finding that claimant deliberately accessed a file without authorization. At the Board hearing, claimant presented evidence that the MIDAS system required him to go through the allegedly unauthorized screens in order to access the authorized screens.
DECISION: Decision of the Board of Review was not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Decision of the Board of Review reversed and decision of the ALJ affirmed.
RATIONALE: Because (1) there were valid reasons for claimant to access the entire MIDAS system, rather than the limited use supposed by the employer’s “need to know” policy, and (2) access to the authorized screens required going through the unauthorized screens first, the claimant’s actions were a “good faith error in judgement.”
Digest Author: James Mestichelli, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest Updated: 3/1/2016