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

Adams v. American Lava Corp.

The case involves George Neal Adams and 341 other employees of American Lava Corporation seeking unemployment compensation benefits. Their claims were initially approved with a four-week disqualification but subsequently denied by the Board of Review, which deemed them ineligible due to their involvement in a strike. The Chancery Court affirmed the Board's decision, leading to an appeal by the complainants. The Supreme Court upheld the chancellor's decree, emphasizing that even after a disqualification period, claimants must satisfy eligibility criteria, specifically being 'available for work,' which the striking employees failed to meet. The court referenced previous rulings, including *Clinton v. Hake*, to support its affirmation that the unemployment compensation act's purpose is to aid those involuntarily unemployed, not to finance strikes.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputeStrikeEligibility RequirementsAvailable for WorkTennessee Supreme CourtJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsEmployer-Employee Relations
References
2
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 McCann

The claimant, a customer service representative, voluntarily resigned from her employment due to social discomfort caused by co-workers' resentment of her romantic relationship with her supervisor's boss. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, finding she lacked good cause for leaving. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting the employer never disapproved of her conduct and that personal feelings of discomfort do not constitute good cause for leaving employment under unemployment insurance law.

unemployment insurancevoluntary resignationgood causepersonal reasonssocial discomfortworkplace relationsappealadministrative lawdisqualificationbenefits
References
2
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 Claim of Belmar

Claimant, a school guard for the New York City Board of Education, was terminated after failing to disclose an arrest and conviction for third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The incident occurred during nonworking hours, but the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that his conduct constituted misconduct directly related to his position and posed a safety risk to students, thus disqualifying him from benefits. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that misconduct affecting integrity, even if off-duty, bears a relationship to employment under Labor Law § 593 (4). The court also held that a certificate of relief from civil disabilities does not exempt an individual from a finding of ineligibility for unemployment benefits due to misconduct.

MisconductUnemployment BenefitsCriminal ConvictionSchool GuardWeapon PossessionOff-Duty ConductCertificate of ReliefCivil DisabilitiesBoard of EducationPersonnel Review
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
Showing 1-10 of 11,028 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