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
Oct 26, 1982

In re the Claim of Peat

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a reduction in her unemployment benefits. The reduction was made under Labor Law § 600(7) due to her receipt of Social Security benefits. The court, citing precedents Matter of Cullen and Rivera v Patino, ruled that Social Security benefits derived from a non-base period employer should not offset unemployment benefits from a different base period employer. As the claimant's Social Security benefits vested from prior employment, the board's decision to reduce her unemployment rate was reversed. The case was remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment BenefitsSocial Security OffsetLabor Law 600(7)Benefit Rate ReductionPrior EmploymentBase Period EmployerAdministrative AppealRemittitur
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claims of Noss

Claimants, employees of Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc. and union members, commenced a strike in 1984. During the strike, they received weekly strike benefits from their union and later unemployment insurance benefits. The employer challenged these benefits, arguing that strike benefits were contingent on performing union duties, making claimants not 'totally unemployed,' and alleged willful misrepresentation. Both the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that the strike benefits were not conditional and no misrepresentation occurred. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that strike benefits not conditioned on services are not considered remuneration under 12 NYCRR 490.2 (b) and that the Board's factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, should not be disturbed.

Unemployment BenefitsStrike BenefitsTotal UnemploymentWillful MisrepresentationLabor UnionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceConditional PaymentsNew York Labor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Claim of Chee

The claimant was laid off in March 1999 and began receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In July 1999, the employer offered to rehire him to his previous position at the same hourly rate of $12.44. The claimant rejected this offer, leading the employer to contest his right to continued benefits. An administrative hearing and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that the claimant was entitled to continued benefits, citing Labor Law § 593 (2) (d). The Board found that the prevailing wage for similar positions in the locality was $14.88 per hour, exceeding the offered salary by more than 10%, which constituted good cause for rejecting the job offer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was rational and supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment benefitsjob refusalprevailing wagegood causeLabor Lawadministrative appealsubstantial evidenceappellate reviewreemploymentUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Block Coal & Coke Co. v. United Mine Workers

This dissenting opinion addresses a claim for unemployment compensation benefits by thousands of coal miners (United Mine Workers of America, District No. 19) against their employers, the Block Coal and Coke Company and other coal operators, for the period of April 1 to May 8, 1939. The core legal question is whether their unemployment stemmed from a 'labor dispute' under Tennessee law, which would disqualify them from benefits. The Commissioner of Labor initially granted benefits, reversed by the Board of Review, then reinstated by the Chancery Court. The coal operators appealed. Justice DeHaven dissents, arguing that the unemployment was due to the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement and ongoing negotiations, not an active labor dispute. He contends that deeming negotiations a dispute would undermine collective bargaining and that the statute requires a localized labor activity like a strike or lockout at the workplace. He concludes that the chancellor's decision to allow benefits should have been affirmed, implying the majority denied the benefits.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputeCollective BargainingContract ExpirationStatutory InterpretationTennessee Unemployment Compensation LawWorkers' RightsEmployer-Employee RelationsAppellate CourtDissenting Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1961

Texas Employment Commission & General Electric Co. v. International Union of Electric Radio & Machine Workers, Local Union no. 782

This case, heard by the Supreme Court of Texas, addresses the eligibility of eighty-eight General Electric Company employees for unemployment compensation benefits during a 1957 plant shutdown. The Texas Employment Commission and General Electric Company appealed a Court of Civil Appeals decision that had granted benefits. The Supreme Court first upheld the district court's jurisdiction based on the aggregation of claims under Article 1906a, V.A.C.S., but affirmed the dismissal of twelve respondents due to non-compliance with residency requirements for judicial review. On the merits, the Court analyzed the collective bargaining agreement and the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act, determining that vacation pay, even if received after the shutdown, constituted 'wages' for the vacation period. Consequently, the employees were not deemed 'totally unemployed' and were not entitled to benefits. The Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, affirming the district court's original decision to deny the claims.

Unemployment CompensationWorkers' RightsCollective BargainingPlant ShutdownVacation PayStatutory InterpretationJudicial JurisdictionResidency RequirementsTexas LawSupreme Court Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1998

In re the Claim of Peabody

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed on September 9, 1998, which ruled that the claimant was not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. This denial was based on Labor Law § 591 (5), a 1996 amendment that limits unemployment benefits when a claimant also receives workers' compensation benefits exceeding their average weekly wage. The claimant contended that the statutory limitation should consider the pre-injury weekly wage used for workers' compensation. However, the Board, and subsequently the court, found no textual basis to interpret 'average weekly wage' in Labor Law § 591 (5) differently from its definition in Labor Law former § 590 (2). Consequently, the Board's conclusion was affirmed.

Unemployment benefitsWorkers' compensation offsetStatutory interpretationAverage weekly wage calculationBenefit eligibilityLabor Law § 591(5)Appeal Board decisionJudicial reviewAffirmed decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Keane

The case concerns an appeal regarding unemployment benefits for workers laid off by their employer during peaceful union contract negotiations. The employer, apprehending a potential strike, laid off workers, but the union negotiations proceeded without incident and ultimately resulted in a new contract. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that no strike, lockout, or industrial controversy occurred, thus entitling the claimants to benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that peaceful collective bargaining is not an 'industrial controversy' under Labor Law § 592(1), and therefore the employees' unemployment was not disqualifying.

Unemployment BenefitsIndustrial ControversyLabor DisputeStrikeLockoutContract NegotiationsUnionLayoffsLabor LawAppellate Decision
References
9
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

In re the Claim of Cale

Claimant, a Canadian national, worked as a social worker at New York University Medical Center under a TN visa. After her inpatient position was eliminated, she applied for partial unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was ineligible to receive them because she was not available for employment. The court affirmed this decision, noting that a non-United States citizen must have valid work authorization from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Her TN visa restricted her to working for a specific employer, NYUMC, and she was not authorized to seek employment elsewhere, thereby rendering her unavailable for work and ineligible for benefits.

Unemployment InsuranceVisa RestrictionsWork AuthorizationImmigration StatusTN VisaEligibility for BenefitsAvailability for EmploymentAppellate DecisionNew York LawSocial Worker
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 10,665 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