William Wilson, Relator,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-1393

William Wilson,
Relator,

vs.

Northern Pines Mental Health Center Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed August 23, 2021
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 39194089-3

William L. Wilson, Garrison, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Keri Phillips Anne B. Froelich, Minnesota Department of Employ ment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Northern Pines Mental Health Center Inc., Little Falls, Minnesota (respondent employer)

Considered and decided by Florey, Pres iding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Relator William Wilson challenges the de cision of an unemployment-law judge
(ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for
2
employment misconduct. Wilson asserts that he did not commit employment misconduct
and that he did not have a fair opportunity to defend his conduct. We affirm.
FACTS
Wilson worked full-time as a licensed clinic al social worker at Northern Pines
Mental Health Center from August 16, 2016 , until his employment was terminated on
April 10, 2020. He provided services to clients at Northern Pines and Teen Challenge. As
part of his social-work practice, he receive d training on Health In surance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements and knew that he could not divulge confidential
information without complying with those requirements.
The termination of Wilson’s employment ar ose out of an incident in March 2020.
At that time, Wilson was on probation following a driving- while-intoxicated conviction.
While on probation, he tested positive for al cohol in his system, a nd he had a probation-
violation hearing scheduled fo r September 2020. During a ph one call with his probation
officer, Wilson complained that he knew of individuals in his social-work practice that
were not “getting any repercussions for their felony charges” but he had “90 days hanging
over [his] head” for his probation violation. He then told his probation officer that they had
a mutual client who attended Teen Challenge and that the client used methamphetamine.
He then asked his probation officer why he faced probation revocation while their mutual
client did not.
Because the probation officer only had on e client in common with Wilson who
attended Teen Challenge, she knew the identity of the client whom Wilson was discussing.
The probation officer reported Wilson’s disclosu re to Northern Pines through email, and
3
Northern Pines followed up with the probation officer by phone. Northern Pines thereafter
discharged Wilson for violating HIPAA.
Wilson applied for unemployment benefits from respondent Minnesota Department
of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). DEED determined that he was
eligible for unemployment benefits because his actions were not employment misconduct,
and Wilson began receiving unemployment bene fits. Northern Pines appealed DEED’s
determination of eligibility, and a ULJ held an evidentiary hearing by phone.
At the beginning of the evidentiary hearin g, Wilson notified the ULJ that he had not
received any of the exhibits submitted by Northern Pines. The ULJ explained that he would
go through each exhibit and describe them fo r the record and that, if Wilson had any
questions, he should let him know. During th e ULJ’s description of the exhibits, Wilson
had no questions.
Wilson and his supervisor both testified at the hearing. The ULJ then telephoned
Wilson’s probation officer, but she declined to testify, stating that her participation would
create a conflict of interest for her. The ULJ then asked Wilson and Northern Pines whether
they wanted the hearing continued so that the ULJ could issue a subpoena for the probation
officer’s testimony. Both W ilson and Northern Pines dec lined to have the hearing
continued.
Following the hearing, the ULJ determin ed that Wilson wa s ineligible for
unemployment benefits because his actions constituted empl oyment misconduct. Wilson
requested reconsideration, alleging that his due-process rights had be en violated because
he did not receive the exhibits and his pr obation officer refused to testify. The ULJ
4
affirmed, stating that Wilson could not claim reversible e rror when he had agreed to
proceed without the exhibits and without the probation officer’s testimony.
Wilson’s certiorari appeal follows.
DECISION
I. The ULJ’s determination that Wilson committed employment misconduct is
not erroneous.

The Minnesota unemployment-insurance pr ogram provides a temporary partial
wage replacement to workers who are “unemployed through no fault of their own.” Minn.
Stat. § 268.03, subd. 1 (2020). A person disc harged for employment misconduct is not
eligible for unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4 (2020). “Employment
misconduct means any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the
job, that is a serious violati on of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to
reasonably expect of the employee.” Id., subd. 6(a) (2020).
Whether an employee committed a particular act is a question of fact, and whether
that act constitutes employment mi sconduct is a que stion of law. Wilson v. Mortg. Res.
Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016). We construe a ULJ’s factual findings in a
light favorable to the ULJ’s decision, and we will not disturb those findings if the evidence
substantially supports them. See id.; see also Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(5) (2020).
Wilson challenges the ULJ’s finding that he was speaking about a specific mutual
client when he was talking to his probation officer. He c ontends, instead, that he was
speaking generally about mutual clients. A lthough the evidence conflicted in some
respects, the ULJ’s finding th at Wilson divulged HIPAA-protected information about a
5
specific client for personal reasons is supported by substantial evidence in the record. This
evidence includes testimony from his supervisor that Wilson told his probation officer that
they had a mutual client wh o was in treatment at Teen Challenge. The evidence also
includes the probation officer’s email to Northern Pines, in which she reported that Wilson
told her that a mutual client used methamphetamine and that, based on Wilson’s statements,
she could identify the client. And, although Wilson testified that he was speaking generally
about mutual clients, the ULJ determined that his testimony was not credible. On appeal,
we defer to the ULJ’s cr edibility determinations. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d
340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). The record t hus supports the ULJ’s factual finding that
Wilson disclosed personally iden tifiable information about hi s client in violation of
HIPAA.
Wilson also challenges the ULJ’s legal de termination that his actions constitute
employment misconduct. He contends that his actions cannot co nstitute employment
misconduct because he was acting in good faith to carry out his obligations as a mandated
reporter. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(b)(6) (providing that employment misconduct
does not include “good faith errors in judgm ent if judgment was required”). Wilson cites
an exception under HIPAA that allows unconsented-to disclosures to prevent an “imminent
threat to the health or safety of the patient.” But Wilson did not clai m to the ULJ that he
was acting in good faith to di sclose information pursuant to this HIPAA exception. Thus,
the ULJ had no opportunity to evaluate the credibility of Wilson’s claim. Because Wilson
did not raise the issue to the ULJ, the issue is not properly before this court on appeal. See
Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts generally
6
will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); Hentges v.
Minn. Bd. of Water & Soil Res., 638 N.W.2d 441, 448 (Minn. App. 2002) (applying Thiele
in an administrative appeal), review denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 2002). Based on the ULJ’s
factual findings, which are supported by the record, the ULJ did not err by concluding that
Wilson committed employment misconduct by violating HIPAA for personal reasons.
II. The ULJ did not violate Wilson’s due-process rights.

Wilson also argues that he “was not afforded a fair rebuttal in this case” and that
“this is evident in the exhibits and testimony.” To the extent that Wilson is challenging the
fairness of the evidentiary hearing in this case, we reject the argument. A ULJ “must ensure
that all relevant facts are clearly and fully developed.” Minn. R. 3310.2921 (2019). Before
the hearing, the ULJ explained that he woul d “go through each of those exhibits and
describe them for the record.” The record reflects that, dur ing the hearing, the ULJ did
exactly that. Wilson did not ask the ULJ any questions about the exhibits, nor did he notify
the ULJ about any confusion he may have had. After describing the exhibits, the ULJ asked
Wilson whether he had any legal objections to the exhibits, and Wilson said that he did not.
On this record, the ULJ met his duty to assist the parties in developing the facts, and Wilson
has failed to show that the ULJ violated his due-process rights.
Affirmed.