Leahy v. State, Dept. of Health & Human Services ( 2013 )

 On appeal, appellant argues that the hearing officer abused
his discretion when he affirmed appellant's termination because she had
client consent for her conduct, she did not receive progressive discipline,
and introducing her sister to a client's power of attorney did not violate
client confidentiality or any administrative code. Additionally, appellant
argues that by affirming the termination for reasons other than those in
the specificity of charges document, the hearing officer violated
evidentiary rules and appellant's due process rights. Respondents
disagree.
On judicial review, this court, like the district court, reviews
the administrative decision for an abuse of discretion. Knapp v. State,
Dep't of Prisons, 111 Nev. 420, 423, 892 P.2d 575, 577 (1995); see also NRS
233B.135(3). This court reviews pure questions of law de novo, but will
give deference to the agency's decision concerning a question of fact if it is
supported by substantial evidence. Knapp, 111 Nev. at 423, 892 P.2d at
577. "Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person could
accept as adequately supporting a conclusion." Vredenburg v. Sedgwick
CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557 n.4, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087 n.4 (2008) (internal
quotation omitted).
Having reviewed appellant's arguments and the record on
appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the hearing
officer's determinations that appellant breached client confidentiality and
violated relevant administrative codes and the employer's policies.
Multiple employees testified as to the employer's policies and the
standards of professional conduct for licensed social workers, particularly
those who investigate claims of elder abuse and exploitation, and the
record supports the finding that appellant's actions violated those
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
standards. See Nellis Motors v. State, DMV, 124 Nev. 1263, 1269-70, 197
P.3d 1061, 1066 (2008) (explaining that on judicial review, this court will
not reweigh the evidence, reassess witness credibility, or substitute the
administrative agency's judgment with our own).
Appellant also argues that termination is too severe; however,
she primarily relies on a case that involved off-duty conduct, which is
clearly distinguished from the circumstances here, where appellant's
conduct in question occurred in her capacity as a state employed social
worker. Moreover, not only does state law and the employer's discipline
guidelines allow for termination for the type of misconduct that the
hearing officer determined appellant engaged in, but it is undisputed that
appellant had previously received a written reprimand regarding similar
conduct. Accordingly, the hearing officer's decision to affirm the
termination of appellant's employment was not arbitrary or capricious, or
affected by clear error, and thus, we affirm the district court's denial of
appellant's petition for judicial review. See Knapp., 111 Nev. at 424-25,
892 P.2d at 577-78 (setting forth the standard of review for this court
when reviewing an administrative officer's decision).
It is so ORDERED.'
Hardesty
Pirraguirre T Cherry
"Having considered appellant's remaining arguments, we conclude
that they lack merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge
Madelyn Shipman, Settlement Judge
Law Office of Daniel Marks
Attorney General/Reno
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A