Thursday, September 22, 2011

NEW YORK UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - HEARINGS AND APPEALS - CAPABILITY OF EMPLOYMENT - CASE NO. 6

A Notice of Appeal was sent and filed with the Appeal Board:

"August 5, 2011

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD
PO BOX 15126
ALBANY, NY 12212-5126

Re: ALJ XXXXXXXXXXX IN RE XXXXXXXXXX

Gentleman:

I am representing the claimant.

On behalf of the claimant, the claimant appeals, pursuant to section 621, subdivision 1 of the law, the attached decision by filing this notice of appeal at the designated local office, or at any office of the administrative law judge section, or at the office of the appeal board, within 20 days after the mailing or personal delivery of the administrative law judge decision.

On behalf of the claimant, I also request that the Appeal Board pursuant to Labor Law § 534 and section 463.6 of the Appeal Board rules reopen and reconsider the decision and to reconsider the issues in the case raised by a re-review of the file in accordance with the Stipulation and Order in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (US Dist Ct, SD NY, Dec. 19, 1997, Carter, J., 79 Civ.5899) and in the interests of justice.

I also request that, if the Appeals Board deems this insufficient, I be given additional time to submit additional documentation.

I also request a hearing pursuant to section 463.3 of the Appeal Board rules.

The reasons for the appeal are:

The only issue before the ALJ was the claimant’s capability of employment. Exhibit 2 introduced at the hearing included a notice of ineligibility from the Social Security Administration dated April 2011 which denied claimant’s claim for disability payments on the grounds that claimant was capable of performing light work. This information was later confirmed in the doctor’s note of June 2011 (used by the claimant to make a reapplication for employment to the claimant’s prior employer and referred to in the decision) which was also introduced as Exhibit 2. Since the claimant was found capable of employment by the Social Security Administration in April 2011, that should be the date that the claimant should be deemed eligible for work and not the date of the doctor’s note of June 2011. This would enable the claimant to receive approximately an additional three months of benefits.

Sincerely,




Jon M. Probstein"

No comments:

Post a Comment