Claimant’s conviction of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine does not amount to a violation under WCL 114-a.

In Stone v. Saulsbury/Federal Signal, the carrier argued that upon the claimant’s release from prison following conviction of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine that the claimant violated WCL §114 – a by failing to report his illegal work activities. The judge found insufficient evidence to establish that the claimant performed any work or made any false statements regarding his work and the Board affirmed that decision.

The Third Department affirmed the board’s decision finding that because the definition of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine doesn’t require the actual manufacture but only the intent to manufacture, that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the claimant was not involved in any work activity and did not receive any type of remuneration. So apparently crime can pay.

Stone v. Saulsbury/Federal Signal,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Enter Captcha Here : *

Reload Image