| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
documentary evidence |
|
Summary:
Claimant criticized the Umpire for substituting himself for the BOR in assessing the facts. Criticism not warranted according to the FCA. BOR's decision very terse because it was based solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing and completely ignored other evidence in the record. BOR could not dismiss this evidence without grounds and its failure to give an explanation was an error that entitled the Umpire to settle the dispute in fact and in law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
Claimant criticized the Umpire for substituting himself for the BOR in assessing the facts. Criticism not warranted according to the FCA. BOR decision very terse because it was based solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing and completely ignored other evidence in the record. BOR could not dismiss this evidence without grounds and its failure to give an explanation was an error that entitled the Umpire to settle the dispute in fact and in law.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
statement of facts required |
|
Summary:
Claimant criticized the Umpire for substituting himself for the BOR in assessing the facts. Criticism not warranted according to the FCA. BOR's decision very terse because it was based solely on the claimant's testimony at the hearing and completely ignored other evidence in the record. BOR could not dismiss this evidence without grounds and its failure to give an explanation was an error that entitled the Umpire to settle the dispute in fact and in law.
