NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

WELCH, J.

In these consolidated cases, the appointing authority, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System ("ELMHS"), challenges a final decision of the Louisiana State Civil Service Commission ("Commission") that granted the appeals of three permanent civil service employees, David Q. Jones, Wanda Whitfield, and Cary Payton, Jr., reversed the disciplinary action the appointing authority imposed against those three employees, reinstated Mr. Jones and Mr. Payton with all back due wages and other employment benefits, set aside Ms. Whitfield's disciplinary reduction in pay, and ordered the payment of attorney fees in each appeal. On appeal, the appointing authority essentially claims that the factual findings and conclusions of the Commission's referee ("referee"), which became those of the Commission,1 were manifestly erroneous and based on an inappropriate credibility determination concerning two witnesses—Stormy Calbaugh and Doris Westmoreland—who testified on behalf of the appointing authority.

Decisions of referees are subject to the same standard of review as decisions of the Commission itself. Decisions of the Commission are subject to the same standard of review as decisions of a district court. Usun v. LSU Health Sciences Center Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 2002-0295 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/14/03), 845 So.2d 491, 494. Hence as to the Commission referee's factual findings, the reviewing court should apply the clearly wrong or manifest error standard of review. Bannister v. Department of Streets, 95-0404 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 641, 647. The trier of fact is granted a great deal of discretion in matters of credibility of witnesses. This is so because the trier of fact is able to observe first-hand the demeanor and character of the witnesses, while this court is limited to a review of the cold record. Therefore, unless the factual findings are clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous, we will not disturb credibility determinations of the Commission or its referee. See Young v. Department of Health and Human Resources, 405 So.2d 1209, 1212 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 407 So.2d 749 (La. 1981).

After an evidentiary hearing in this matter, the referee issued extensive factual findings, which can be summarized as follows:

On August 14, 2012, Mr. Jones, Mr. Payton, Ms. Whitfield, and another employee, Lloyd Bell, were assigned to ELMHS's Crossroads Rehabilitation Unit ("CRU"). That same date, Ms. Calbaugh and Ms. Westmoreland (temporary canteen workers employed through the Louisiana Workforce Commission's Blind Services Program) were in the CRU delivering canteen items. While outside on the front porch of the CRU, Mr. Jones observed Patient #2002 ("the patient"), who had a history of violent and assaultive behavior toward the staff of ELMHS, hitting himself in the face. Mr. Jones escorted the patient into the building, notified the nursing staff of his behavior, placed the patient in the library of the CRU and summoned Mr. Payton to watch the patient. Ms. Whitfield was at the monitoring station.

Mr. Jones was then notified that "Arm's Length Observation" ("ALO"), which requires that an officer have a visual and arm's length proximity to the patient at all times and that the staff search the patient for contraband and dangerous objects, was ordered by the patient's treating physician. When Mr. Jones notified the patient that he was being placed on ALO and that Mr. Payton was being assigned to watch him, the patient threw his personal papers (which he kept with him at all times) at Mr. Jones. Mr. Payton, who was standing in the library, observed this exchange, as did Mr. Bell, who was standing by the canteen cart by the monitoring station. The patient then moved toward Mr. Jones, who then attempted to restrain the patient, but the patient resisted and a short struggle ensued. The patient then fell to the couch and slid on the floor, and eventually, Mr. Jones and Mr. Payton were able to restrain the patient.

Mr. Jones left the library, reported the incident to the nurses, and had a nurse examine the patient. The nurse found no swelling or bruising on the patient and the patient did not accuse Mr. Jones of abusing him. Mr. Jones also contacted his supervisor and notified him of the incident. Mr. Payton, Mr. Bell, and Ms. Whitfield never saw Mr. Jones slap, punch, or throw the patient to the floor. However, both Ms. Calbaugh and Ms. Westmoreland claimed that Mr. Jones slapped and punched the patient. Thereafter, the appointing authority instituted disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Jones, Mr. Payton, and Ms. Whitfield. It charged Mr. Jones with physically abusing the patient, charged Ms. Whitfield with failing to report Mr. Jones' abuse of the patient, and charged Mr. Payton with failing to report and/or prevent Mr. Jones' abuse of the patient. Following this incident, both Ms. Calbaugh and Ms. Westmoreland were hired as employees by the appointing authority.

Based on the evidence, the referee found that the testimony of Ms. Calbaugh and Ms. Westmoreland lacked credibility for several reasons. The referee found that Ms. Calbaugh and Ms. Westmoreland had motive to "color" their stories so as to please their prospective (and now current) employer; observed that Ms. Calbaugh smirked, smiled, and giggled throughout her entire testimony; that Ms. Calbaugh and Ms. Westmoreland, who resided together and were involved in a relationship, had motive to "support" each other's statement; and that the testimony of Ms. Calbaugh and Ms. Westmoreland was inconsistent with and irreconcilable with the other evidence in the case and the testimony of Mr. Jones, Mr. Payton, Ms. Whitfield, and Mr. Bell.

Based on the referee's determination that the testimony of Mr. Jones, Mr. Payton, and Mr. Bell was much more credible than the testimony of Ms. Calbaugh and Ms. Westmoreland, the referee found that Mr. Jones took appropriate action to protect himself and restrain the patient, who was known for violent and aggressive behavior against the staff, that the nurse found no evidence of abuse, and therefore, that Mr. Jones did not physically abuse the patient and that the appointing authority failed to prove cause for discipline against Mr. Jones. Further, because the referee concluded that Mr. Jones did not physically abuse the patient, the referee also concluded that neither Ms. Whitfield nor Mr. Payton failed in their duty to report the abuse, that Mr. Payton did not fail in his duty to prevent the abuse, and thus, that the appointing authority likewise failed to prove cause for discipline against Ms. Whitfield or Mr. Payton.

The appointing authority filed an application for review, which was denied by the Commission. The appointing authority then appealed to this court. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this matter and can find no manifest error in the referee's determination that Ms. Calbaugh and Ms. Westmoreland lacked credibility, that Mr. Jones did not physically abuse the patient, and consequently, that the appointing authority lacked cause to discipline Mr. Jones, Mr. Payton, and Ms. Whitfield. Accordingly, we affirm the final decision of the Louisiana State Civil Service Commission in accordance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(A)(4), (5), (6), (7), and (8). All costs of this appeal in the amount of $1,348.00 are assessed to Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System.

AFFIRMED.