Decision A-0417.01

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision A-0417.01 Woods Michael R.  Federal  English 2002-03-04
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Allowed Unanimous - Returned to the ump  No Commission  51479 


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees  errors in law  excess of jurisdiction 

Summary:

The claimant having been misled by employees of the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire determined that the overpayment should be reduced by 50%. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had jurisdiction or authority to compel the Commission to exercise its discretion to write off an overpayment. Further, neither the BOR nor the Umpire are free to declare the Commission's refusal to be an abuse of process.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
reconsideration of claim  overpayment  authority to write off 

Summary:

The claimant having been misled by employees of the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire determined that the overpayment should be reduced by 50%. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had jurisdiction or authority to compel the Commission to exercise its discretion to write off an overpayment. Further, neither the BOR nor the Umpire are free to declare the Commission's refusal to be an abuse of process.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
board of referees  legislative authority  discretionary powers 

Summary:

The claimant having been misled by employees of the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire determined that the overpayment should be reduced by 50%. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had jurisdiction or authority to compel the Commission to exercise its discretion to write off an overpayment. Further, neither the BOR nor the Umpire are free to declare the Commission's refusal to be an abuse of process.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
umpires  errors in law  excess of jurisdiction 

Summary:

The claimant having been misled by employees of the Commission, the BOR and the Umpire determined that the overpayment should be reduced by 50%. The FCA found that neither the BOR nor the Umpire had jurisdiction or authority to compel the Commission to exercise its discretion to write off an overpayment. Further, neither the BOR nor the Umpire are free to declare the Commission's refusal to be an abuse of process.


Date modified: