In re the Claim of Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Jackson

206 A.D.2d 727, 614 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7554

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 21, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 727 (In re the Claim of Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Jackson, 206 A.D.2d 727, 614 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 20, 1993, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not capable of employment.

We find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination that claimant, a former stock clerk, is incapable of working because he suffers from a schizophrenic disorder with auditory hallucinations. While claimant’s psychiatrist did testify that claimant could proba[728]*728bly work after he participated in vocational rehabilitation, it was noted that claimant had yet to enter such a program and the "steps claimant has already taken in registering with a referral agency [do not] demonstrate that he can work”. Under the circumstances, the Board’s conclusion that claimant is ineligible to receive benefits has a rational basis in the record and must be upheld.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 20, 1993, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not capable of employment.

We find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination that claimant, a former stock clerk, is incapable of working because he suffers from a schizophrenic disorder with auditory hallucinations. While claimant’s psychiatrist did testify that claimant could proba[728]*728bly work after he participated in vocational rehabilitation, it was noted that claimant had yet to enter such a program and the "steps claimant has already taken in registering with a referral agency [do not] demonstrate that he can work”. Under the circumstances, the Board’s conclusion that claimant is ineligible to receive benefits has a rational basis in the record and must be upheld.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 727, 614 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jackson-nyappdiv-1994.