| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
The Board did not take into account the claimant's explanation. While as a general rule more credence is given to prior statements, these in this case were sufficiently ambiguous that they were susceptible of subjective interpretation. Not a principle of law but a rule of thumb.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
type of work |
|
Summary:
Statements made in relation to the kind of work which claimants initially think acceptable must be viewed with caution because they are likely to be statements of claimants' first preferences rather than a final statement.
