4-3101-5897-2
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE HASTINGS VETERANS HOME
In the Matter of the Appeal of FINDINGS OF FACTS
Kevin Johnson CQNCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law
Judge Peter C. Erickson at 9:30 a.m. on January 3, 1992, at the Office of
Administrative Hearings, Minneapolis, Minnesota. William E. Jepsen, from the
firm of Karon, Jepsen & Daly, Attorneys at Law, 1600 American National Bank
Building, 5th and Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared on
behalf of the Appellant, Kevin Johnson. Bernard E. Johnson, Special Assistant
Attorney General, 1100 Bremer Tower, Seventh Place and Minnesota Street,
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared on behalf of the Hastings Veterans Home.
The record closed at the conclusion of the hearing on January 3, 1992.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 14.61 the final
decision of the Administrator of the Hastings Veterans Home shall not be made
until this Report has been made available to the parties to the proceeding for
at least ten days, and an opportunity has been afforded to each party
adversely affected to file exceptions and present argument to the
Administrator. Exceptions to this Report, if any, shall be filed with the
Administrator, Susan Kiley, Hastings Veterans Home, 1200 East 18th Street,
Hastings, Minnesota 55033.
5TATEMENT_OF ISSUE
The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether the discharge of
Kevin Johnson from the Hastings Veterans Home was retaliatory in violation of
Minn. Stat. 198.32, subd. 2.
Based upon the proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At the commencement of this proceeding, the parties stipulated that
a violation of Minn. Rule 9050.0200, subp. 3.C. could be proved by the
Hastings Veterans Home which would constitute a sufficient basis for the
discharge of Kevin Johnson from the Home. In addition, the Appellant
stipulated that all procedural requirements of law or rule have been followed
by the Home in commencing and litigating this action. In lieu of a full
evidentiary hearing, the Appellant chose only to try the issue of retaliatory
discharge set forth above. Exhibits 1 through 17 were received into evidence
without objection to show, in large part, the basis for the discharge action
taken by the Home.
2. Kevin Johnson is a thirty-eight year-old male who began residing at
the Hastings Veterans Home on April 15, 1988. Beginning in December of 1988,
Mr. Johnson began using alcohol while at the Home. He was diagnosed as
alcohol-dependent and underwent treatment twice, the last time in 1989, at
treatment facilities away from the Home. Mr. Johnson's stated objectives
while living at the Home were to find employment and be able to live
independently. However, he has exhibited a continual pattern of alcohol abuse
from the date of his admission through approximately August 1, 1991. On two
occasions, Mr. Johnson suffered seizures while at the Home as a result of
alcohol withdrawal. He was sent to Detox five times and was arrested for a
DWI in early 1991. In addition to finding employment and attaining an
independent living status, a third goal of Mr. Johnson has been to maintain
sobriety. However, Mr. Johnson has refused to participate in chemical
dependency treatment programs suggested by the Home in the last year.
3. The Hastings Veterans Home does not have an in-house chemical
dependency treatment program. Although there are counselors on staff who deal
with the issue of chemical dependency with residents, there is no structured
program which will meet the needs of a person suffering from the illness of
chemical dependency. Consequently, residents are referred out to other
treatment facilities if chemical dependency has been diagnosed and a treatment
program is required. In May of 1991, Kevin Johnson refused to sign release
forms so that he could be evaluated at two chemical dependency treatment
centers for the purpose of admission and treatment.
4. Subsequent to Mr. Johnson's refusal to participate in his placement
at a chemical dependency treatment center, he was informed by staff members at
the Hastings Veterans Home that his continued residence at the Home would be
reviewed due to continued alcohol abuse and his refusal to participate in
treatment. In addition, due to the alcohol abuse, Mr. Johnson was unable to
work on his goals of finding employment and living independently.
5. The staffing at the Hastings Veterans Home includes a Utilization
Review Committee which reviews and determines whether residents should
continue living at the Home. One of the primary functions of the committee is
to decide whether the Home can adequately meet the needs of the
patient-residents. In addition, there is a "Level of Care Exception
Committee" which meets on a monthly basis to review residents who have been
found to be a "danger to themselves or others". Both of these committees
actively reviewed Kevin Johnson's status at the Home during the spring and
summer of 1991. This review was based on Mr. Johnson's continued alcohol
abuse and his inability to meet the goals of sobriety, finding employment and
independent living.
6. On July 6, 1991, Kevin Johnson was using a table saw in the
Carpenter Shop at the Hastings Veterans Home. While using the saw, he
accidentally cut off the tip of his index finger on his right hand. Mr.
Johnson was taken to the Regina Hospital Emergency Room after the accident and
emergency medical treatment was administered.
-2-
7 . On July 12 , 1991 , Kevin Johnson telephoned the Minnesota Office of
Health Facility Complaints to file a complaint concerning the injury he
sustained on July 6, and the fact that staff at the Home were talking to other
staff and patients about the nature of the injury. At that time, Mr. Johnson
wan informed that the Home administrator, Susan Kiley, would be contacted and
appropriate follow-up would occur. After receiving the phone call from Mr.
Johnson, a representative from Health Facility Complaints called Ms. Kiley to
inform her of the substance of the complaint which had been filed by
Mr. Johnson.
8. On July 29, 1991, the Utilization Review Committee met and
recommended, based on Kevin Johnson's past history of alcohol abuse, that he
be involuntarily discharged from Hastings Veterans Home. This recommendation
was based, in part, on a similar recommendation from the Level of Care
Exception Committee that involuntary discharge occur with respect to
Mr. Johnson because his needs could not be met at the Home.
9. On August 1, 1991, an investigator for the Sieben, Grose & Von
Holtum Law Firm, Andrew Miklesh, went to the Hastings Veterans Home to
investigate the scene of the injury sustained by Mr. Johnson on July 6, 1991.
Mr. Johnson had called the law firm and requested representation with respect
to his hand injury. When Mr. Miklesh was at the Home, he spoke with the
Administrator, Susan Kiley, concerning the purpose and reason for his visit.
10, Based on the Utilization Review Committee's recommendation for the
involuntary discharge of Kevin Johnson, Susan Kiley gave Mr. Johnson a Notice
of Involuntary Discharge dated August 5, 1991. The notice stated that the
effective date of discharge was September 4, 1991. Additionally, it informed
Mr. Johnson that he had a right to appeal the discharge pursuant to Minn. Rule
9050.0220. Kevin Johnson filed a timely appeal of the discharge dated
August 30, 1991. Subsequently, a Notice of and Order for Hearing on this case
was issued by the Hastings Veterans Home on October 1, 1991.
11. on December 20, 1989, an Occupational Safety and Health Citation was
issued to the Hastings Veterans Home which cited the Home for a lack of
guarding on the table saw which Kevin Johnson injured himself on in July of
1991. The proper guard on that table saw is removed by residents who use the
saw because it makes the use easier, although more dangerous.
12. Mr. Johnson has maintained sobriety from approximately
August 1, 1991 to the present.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
CQNCLUSIQNS
1. The Administrative Law Judge and the Hastings Veterans Home
Administrator have jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. 14.50
and Minn. Rule 9050.0220, subp. 6. The Notice of Hearing was proper in this
case and the Home has complied with all substantive and procedural
requirements of law or rule.
2. The Home has proved that it is unable to meet the care needs of
-3-
Kevin Johnson pursuant to Minn. Rule 9050.0200, subp. 2.C. Adequate grounds
for discharge have been shown.
3 Pursuant to Minn. Stat 198.32, subd. 2, an involuntary discharge
which occurs within forty-five days of a grievance filed by a resident is
presumed to be retaliatory and, if not rebutted, is prohibited. The Judge
concludes that the Home has rebutted this presumption and shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the involuntary discharge was not
retaliatory, but was rather the result of Mr. Johnson's continued alcohol
abuse and his failure to meet the goals of finding employment and independent
living.
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes
the following:
RECOMMENDATIQN
IT IS RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that the Administrator of the Hastings
Veterans Home issue an order affirming the decision to discharge Kevin Johnson
from the Home.
Dated this 27 day of January, 1992.
PETER C. ERICKSON
Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 14.62, subd. 1, the agency is required to serve
its final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first
class mail.
Reported: Taped.
MEMORANDUM
This is a difficult case. Kevin Johnson obviously needs assistance in
getting his life back on track and the Judge is not convinced that the recent
period of sobriety, without treatment, ensures that problems will not again
arise. Mr. Johnson has refused a referral to treatment facilities offered by
the Hastings Veterans Home. His past history at the Home shows that treatment
is necessary for continued residence. Additionally, the record in this case
does not support a claim of retaliation made by the Appellant. The Judge
suggests that before issuing a final decision on this case, Mr. Johnson be
given a last opportunity to participate in a treatment referral before
discharge occurs.
PCE
-4-