## Facts

- Chauncey E. Francis was discharged from his employment after workplace conduct associated with alcohol use.
- The administrative record included documentary evidence that Francis had been intoxicated at work.
- The record indicated Francis experienced “black-outs” and had been hospitalized multiple times, including a 28-day hospitalization, in connection with alcoholism.
- Evaluation materials reflected that the employer considered Francis an alcoholic and had tried to involve him in self-help programs.
- At a hearing, Francis did not expressly label himself an alcoholic, but admitted drinking daily and needing counseling.
- The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found Francis was an alcoholic and characterized the discharge as resulting from illness rather than misconduct.
- The Board directed further proceedings to determine whether Francis met Labor Law § 527 requirements concerning availability for and capability of employment.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Appeal Board’s finding that Francis was an alcoholic despite the absence of medical or expert testimony.
2. Whether, after finding alcoholism, the Appeal Board acted within its discretion in treating the discharge as illness rather than misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes.
3. Whether the claim required remand for a determination of eligibility under Labor Law § 527 (availability for and capability of employment).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the record contained substantial evidence supporting the Appeal Board’s finding that Francis was an alcoholic, notwithstanding the lack of medical testimony.
- The Court held the Appeal Board acted within its discretion in denominating the discharge as the result of illness rather than misconduct.
- The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted for remand to the Appeal Board to determine eligibility under Labor Law § 527 as previously directed by the Board.

## Legal Principles

- An administrative finding that a claimant is an alcoholic may be supported by substantial non-medical evidence, including workplace records, hospitalizations, evaluations, and claimant testimony; medical or expert testimony is not a prerequisite.
- When the Appeal Board reasonably finds alcoholism, it may treat termination stemming from that condition as illness rather than misconduct, avoiding automatic disqualification from unemployment benefits.
- Eligibility for unemployment benefits may still depend on a separate determination under Labor Law § 527 regarding availability for and capability of employment.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the Appeal Board’s alcoholism and illness determinations under a substantial-evidence and discretion framework, but required a remand for the Board to decide whether the claimant satisfied Labor Law § 527’s independent eligibility requirements.


Matter of Francis, 56 N.Y.2d 600, 435 N.E.2d 1086 (N.Y. 1982)