Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Kimberly A. PALMISANO, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 17, 2006, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked as an assistant service representative for the employer from November 23, 1998 through August 25, 2005. During her tenure, she was approved for short-term disability leave but was expected to return to work on June 20, 2005. Claimant was terminated from her position because she did not return to work on the date scheduled or provide the employer's disability insurance carrier with medical documentation substantiating the extension of her disability beyond such date. When she applied for unemployment insurance benefits, the employer objected contending, among other things, that claimant lost her employment due to misconduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified claimant from receiving benefits on this basis and claimant now appeals.
We affirm. “A refusal to provide documentation validating a claimant's need for an extended medical leave of absence may constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Cooper [Commissioner of Labor], 305 A.D.2d 894, 895, 758 N.Y.S.2d 858 [2003] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Pegues [Commissioner of Labor], 301 A.D.2d 698, 753 N.Y.S.2d 216 [2003]; Matter of Armbruster [Commissioner of Labor], 278 A.D.2d 726, 727, 718 N.Y.S.2d 241 [2000] ). Here, the employer's representative testified that, despite repeated requests, claimant did not provide the employer or its insurance carrier with medical documentation necessary to recertify her claim and extend her authorized absence beyond June 20, 2005. Claimant's contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Benbow [Commissioner of Labor], 32 A.D.3d 1094, 1095, 820 N.Y.S.2d 869 [2006] ). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board's decision.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 19, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)