| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| compassionate care |
requirements |
|
|
Summary:
The Umpire stated that the claimant would not qualify for compassionate care benefits because the evidence does not satisfy the requirements of s. 23.1(2)(a) of the Act. He concluded that it was an error in law for the Board to direct the Commission to pay compassionate care benefits in place of regular benefits because she was caring for her disabled father.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
family obligations |
|
Summary:
The claimant stated that, because she had to take care of her disabled father she could not work on a regular basis. The Umpire confirmed the Commission's decision that the claimant was not available for work as required under s. 18(a) of the Act.
