| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
observations from the Commission |
|
|
Summary:
The CEIC has misled the Board in stating that as a matter of law earlier statements are more credible. It does a disservice to claimants, Boards and Umpires in misrepresenting the state of the law to Boards especially as there is normally no one there to refute such observations.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
There was also a serious error of law. The Board accepted that as a matter of law earlier statements of a claimant are to be given credibility over later statements. This is not representative of the law. It may be a useful rule of thumb, but that is not an invariable rule.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
There was also a serious error of law. The Board accepted that as a matter of law earlier statements of a claimant are to be given credibility over later statements. This is not representative of the law. It may be a useful rule of thumb, but that is not an invariable rule.
