| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
factual cases |
rate of benefit |
|
Summary:
The initial benefit rate was wrongly calculated by the Commission. As a result of new information the rate was corrected. Umpire concluded that, while one can understand the annoyance of claimant, unfortunately it is the law which must be applied and in faling to do this, the BOR made in error in law. The error was detected and corrected by the Commission well within the time limit allowed by the legislation.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
Jurisprudence has long upheld that even if an agent of the Commission makes an error, and even if it is prejudicial to a claimant, such as giving wrong advice, this gives a claimant no rights which the law does not provide.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
The initial benefit rate was wrongly calculated by the Commission. As a result of new information the rate was corrected. Umpire concluded that, while one can understand the annoyance of claimant, unfortunately it is the law which must be applied and in faling to do this, the BOR made in error in law. The error was detected and corrected by the Commission well within the time limit allowed by the legislation.
