| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
material fact |
mistake as to a |
|
Summary:
Counsel for clmt argues that failure to specify all areas of allocation in letters sent by Commission was a mistake as to a material fact pursuant to EIA 120. Umpire ruled that no prejudice to the clmt was shown by a clerical error which carried no consequence to the clmt since total amount of allocation is correct.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
errors by Commission |
not a ground of entitlement |
|
Summary:
The total amount allocation was correct on the letter from the Commission but was lacking in the specifics of the said allocation. Umpire ruled that no prejudice to the claimant has been shown by this clerical error which carried no consequence for the claimant. A clmt is not relieved from the operation of the allocation provisions even if the Commission commits an error.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
allocation |
applicability |
|
Summary:
Once monies are determined to be earnings for benefit purposes and are found to be paid or payable, payment and receipt having been acknowledged by both parties, the issue of allocation arises. Clmt is not relieved from the operation of the allocation provisions even if the Commission or the employer provides erroneous information or commits an error.
