You are here: / / CLAIMANT, WHO HAD BEEN INJURED, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS ABLE TO WORK...

CLAIMANT, WHO HAD BEEN INJURED, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS ABLE TO WORK DURING THE TIME SHE WAS CERTIFIED FOR BENEFITS, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD RULING SHE WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, determined claimant was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because she had been injured and did not demonstrate she was able to work during the relevant period of time:

The substantial and unrefuted medical documentation in the record, together with claimant’s receipt of workers’ compensation benefits, establishes that claimant was unable to perform any job duties required of her during the time period in which she certified for benefits … . In addition, inasmuch as the essential job functions required of her included the performance of various physical tasks, including the manual operation of a school bus door three times in a certain amount of time, we are unpersuaded by claimant’s contention that, at the time she applied for benefits and during the time period in question, no accommodation was made for her injury… . Moreover, although claimant testified that she previously worked as a waitress and that she was capable of performing such work while she recovered from her injury, claimant’s testimony does not reflect that she sought, or was available for, this type of employment at any point during the time period in which she certified for benefits … . In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant was ready, willing and able to work in her employment as a school bus driver or in any other type of employment for which she is reasonably fitted by training and experience during the time period in which she certified for benefits … . Matter of Ormanian (Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 08592, Third Dept 12-13-18

 

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE INDICATED VISITATION WITH FATHER WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; FATHER’S PETITION FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
ARTICLE 78 ACTION SEEKING TO PROHIBIT THE TRIAL JUDGE IN A CRIMINAL CASE FROM EXCLUDING TESTIMONY AS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DISMISSED AS INAPPROPRIATE; MATTER CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THE OLDER CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE BY FATHER; THE ABUSE AND DERIVATIVE ABUSE PETITION WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether State Exercised Due Diligence In Addressing Recurrent Blowing-Snow Problem on Highway
EXOTIC DANCERS WERE EMPLOYEES.
DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER.
MOTION TO CONDITIONALLY SEAL RECORD OF A MISDEMEANOR DRUG CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND GRANTED.
Where an Injured Worker Remains Attached to the Work Force After Injury, the Measure of Benefits Is the Difference Between Actual Earnings Before and After Injury and Cannot Be Based On Evidence of What the Worker Could Be Earning

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEWSPAPER CARRIER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS... A SENTENCING COURT MAY REQUIRE A DEFENDANT, AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION, TO...