CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Miceli

The claimant, a former software engineer for IBM, sought extended unemployment insurance benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) after her initial benefits were exhausted. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision and denied her application, ruling she was ineligible. Eligibility for TEUC-A benefits requires that airline-related employment ended due to specific events like reductions in service caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, airport closures, or the military conflict with Iraq. The court found no basis to disturb the Board’s decision, as the claimant failed to demonstrate that her layoff due to 'lack of work' was directly attributable to any of the qualifying airline-related events specified in TEUC-A. The court also noted that certain documents offered by the claimant to support her assertion were outside the administrative record. Accordingly, the decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended Unemployment CompensationTEUC-AAirline-related WorkersSoftware EngineerLayoffSeptember 11 AttacksIraq WarEligibility CriteriaAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1997

In re the Claim of Schembri

The claimant, a manager at a coffee shop restaurant, was discharged following a confrontation with her supervisor. The supervisor alleged the claimant became very upset and yelled at her in the presence of customers and later in the back room. A co-worker corroborated the supervisor's account. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant's conduct constituted disqualifying misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's findings and noting that the claimant's denial of raising her voice presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductTermination of EmploymentSupervisor ConfrontationCredibility IssueWorkplace DisputeAppeal Board DecisionAdministrative LawEmployment LawManagerial Misconduct
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1993

In re the Claim of Regan

The claimant was discharged from their position as a loader at a beverage plant due to insubordination and argumentative conduct with supervisors on multiple occasions. Subsequently, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied the claimant's application for unemployment insurance benefits, concluding that the termination resulted from misconduct. The claimant appealed this decision, asserting that the Board erroneously relied on the factual findings from an arbitration award and that they were not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the discharge issue. The court found no merit in the claimant's arguments, noting that the same claims were previously raised and rejected in prior federal litigation concerning the arbitration award. Consequently, the Board's decision, which was supported by the arbitrator's findings of willful misconduct, was affirmed based on the principle of collateral estoppel.

MisconductInsubordinationUnemployment BenefitsArbitrationCollateral EstoppelJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeDue ProcessEmployment TerminationAdministrative Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Warnock

The claimant was terminated after an altercation with a co-worker, but eyewitnesses testified that no threats or physical contact occurred, and the co-worker was the one who became angry. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, finding that the actions did not constitute misconduct. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the Board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and that displaying bad judgment does not automatically disqualify a claimant from benefits.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductSubstantial evidenceAltercationCo-worker disputeAppellate reviewAppeal Board decisionEmployee terminationBad judgmentNo physical contact
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2004

In re the Claim of Shaposhnik

The claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits and exhausted the regular 26 weeks. Subsequently, the claimant applied for extended benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC Act). The application was denied because it was filed after the December 28, 2003 eligibility deadline. The claimant argued that temporary employment caused the delay. The Administrative Law Judge modified the initial determination, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed. The court affirmed the decision, stating that the claimant's regular benefits ended on January 11, 2004, and the application for extended benefits was filed after the deadline, making the denial proper.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended BenefitsEligibility DeadlineTemporary EmploymentUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardTEUC ActFederal FundingBenefit DenialJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

In re the Claim of Wexler

Claimant, a legal secretary employed by two temporary employment agencies, applied for unemployment insurance benefits. After exhausting regular benefits, claimant sought extended benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A), designed for displaced airline-related workers. The application was denied by the Administrative Law Judge and affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found his employment was not airline-related within the meaning of TEUC-A. The claimant's employers provided services to law firms, not directly to airlines or as upstream producers/suppliers for airlines. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant's employment was not airline related.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended BenefitsAirline IndustryDisplaced WorkersTemporary EmploymentEligibility CriteriaUpstream ProducerSupplierAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Muniz (Commr. of Labor)

Claimant was terminated from employment for falsifying work orders, a violation of company policy he had been previously warned about. His initial application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied, but an Administrative Law Judge reversed this, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board found that while claimant was aware of the policy, he was not adequately advised that a repeat mistake would result in termination, operating under an understanding of progressive discipline. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant's conduct did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductWork Order FalsificationProgressive DisciplineAdministrative Law JudgeAppeal Board DecisionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceEmployment TerminationBenefit Entitlement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Sweet

A claimant, formerly a sewage treatment worker for a municipality, left his job and moved to Hawaii after receiving a conditional job offer at a tropical fish farm and his girlfriend's relocation there. Upon arrival, he discovered the position was no longer available. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, determining he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant failed to verify the job offer before moving and had primarily relocated for personal reasons without definite employment.

Unemployment benefitsVoluntary quitGood cause for leavingJob availabilityRelocation for personal reasonsDisqualification for benefitsAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceMunicipality employmentHawaii job offer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Forbes

Claimant, a psychiatric social worker, was reclassified as an 'independent contractor' by Brooklyn Center for Families in Crisis, Inc. for the last six months of her employment, receiving an hourly rate. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the Center exercised sufficient direction and control over her work, establishing her status as an employee and thus her eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Despite the re-designation, the claimant continued to treat the same patients in the same manner on the Center’s premises, worked under a supervisor, and the Center established the fees. The court affirmed the Board’s ruling, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant and similarly situated individuals were employees of the Center.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPsychiatric Social WorkerEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEmployee BenefitsEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of De Voe

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reduced the claimant's unemployment benefits to zero, citing Labor Law § 600 (7), because the claimant's monthly pension, fully funded by his former employer, exceeded the maximum weekly benefit rate of $300. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing that Labor Law § 600 (7) violated his right to equal protection and constituted age discrimination. The Court rejected these contentions, affirming the Board's decision and upholding the statute as rational and directly related to the purpose of providing income to unemployed workers without earned income.

Unemployment InsurancePension OffsetBenefit ReductionEqual ProtectionAge DiscriminationLabor Law § 600 (7)Appellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardRational Basis
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,250 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational