| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
not a trial de novo |
|
Summary:
The Commission presented only one report card from each claim in the Appeal docket and suggested that the BOR and the Umpire could assume that all the other cards were the same. At the re-hearing before a new BOR, the Commission filed all the report cards. The FCA found that it would be unfair to remit a matter to a BOR in order for one party to file new evidence which could have been filed earlier and if evidence was deliberately or accidentally withheld, it is not a reason to order a "de novo".
