Claimant appeals. Inasmuch as claimant did not provide the requested documentation supporting his leave application, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits ( see Matter of Hill [Commissioner of Labor], 37 AD3d 931, 932, lv denied 9 NY3d 807; Matter of Furman [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 953, 953). Claimant's testimony that he did not receive the employer's communication requesting the additional documentation and that, in any event, he was unable to procure the documents presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve ( see Matter of Kramer [Commissioner of Labor], 47 AD3d 1184; Matter of Furman [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d at 953-954). Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
We affirm. An employee's failure to return to work following an authorized leave of absence ( see Matter of Martinez [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 745; Matter of Oak ford [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 671) or failure to provide medical documentation supporting an extended leave request ( see Matter of Furman [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 953, 953) may disqualify him or her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Here, the employer's representative testified that claimant did not provide requested medical documentation and that his request for an extension of his unpaid leave was never approved.
Claimant now appeals. Notably, the failure to report to work after an authorized leave of absence may disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits ( see Matter of Raykina [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 940, 940; Matter of Furman [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 953, 953). Here, claimant did not report to work on August 12, 2002 following the expiration of her medical leave or any time thereafter even though her physician certified her ability to do so. It is undisputed that suitable work was available for claimant during this time, but that she was out of town on the date she was approved to return and had enrolled in a nursing program that conflicted with her work schedule.
Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. By not contacting the employer, claimant failed to take reasonable steps to protect his employment (see e.g. Matter of Cranston [Commissioner of Labor], 294 A.D.2d 694;Matter of Murphy [Commissioner of Labor], 264 A.D.2d 877). Furthermore, given claimant's statement on his application for unemployment insurance benefits that his separation from employment was caused by lack of work, we will not disturb the Board's finding that claimant made willful false statements or its assessment of a recoverable overpayment of benefits ( see Matter of Furman [Commissioner of Labor], 304 A.D.2d 953). Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur.
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had lost her employment under disqualifying circumstances. Substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. It is well settled that the failure to return to work on time following an authorized leave of absence may disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Furman [Commissioner of Labor], 304 A.D.2d 953, 758 N.Y.S.2d 424; Matter of Cranston [Commissioner of Labor], 294 A.D.2d 694). To the extent that claimant's testimony regarding the events leading to the end of her employment was at variance with that presented on behalf of the employer (e.g., she avers that the employer did not specifically deny her permission to take off five days), these discrepancies presented issues of credibility for resolution by the Board (see Matter of Wilder [Commissioner of Labor], 271 A.D.2d 789), which was not bound by the Administrative Law Judge's findings (see Matter of Simpson [Commissioner of Labor], 301 A.D.2d 1005). Claimant's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.