Ambassador Convalescent Center
Labor Arbitration
83 Lab. Arb. Rep. 44 (1984)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
On August 15, 1983, an orderly (plaintiff) and a nursing assistant bathed an elderly patient. When the patient’s sister visited the patient after the bath, the patient’s eye was red and watering. The patient told his sister that an orderly had hit him in the eye for defecating during the bath. The on-duty nurse then brought the orderly into the patient’s room, and the patient pointed to the orderly and said that the orderly hit him. Later the same day, a friend of the patient visited, and the patient told the friend the same information he told his sister. The patient also provided the friend with a physical description of the person who hit him, which matched that of the orderly. Two nursing supervisors also went to the patient’s room the same day, and the patient identified the orderly as the person who hit him. Ambassador Convalescent Center, Inc. (facility) (defendant) terminated the orderly for the incident. By the time of the grievance hearing, the patient had died. The patient’s sister, the friend, and the nursing supervisors testified to what the patient had told them. The facility relied on this testimony and noted that patient abuse was prohibited by its policy and the law. The orderly denied hitting the patient, and the nursing assistant corroborated that testimony. The parties stipulated that the issue for the arbitrator to decide was whether the termination was for just and sufficient cause.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lipson, Arbitrator)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.