| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| voluntarily leaving employment |
working conditions |
hard work |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire and Board of Referees erred in deciding that the claimant should have produced a doctor’s certificate to support her claim that she had no alternative but to leave her employment. It is obvious that she was not claiming to have an illness when she said that working in a standing position hurt her feet. She simply found employment in a restaurant too difficult from a physical point of view. Since no one doubted her credibility, a certificate would have added nothing to her testimony.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire and Board of Referees erred in deciding that the claimant should have produced a doctor’s certificate to support her claim that she had no alternative but to leave her employment. It is obvious that she was not claiming to have an illness when she said that working in a standing position hurt her feet. She simply found employment in a restaurant too difficult from a physical point of view. Since no one doubted her credibility, a certificate would have added nothing to her testimony.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
FCA found that the Umpire and Board of Referees erred in deciding that the claimant should have produced a doctor’s certificate to support her claim that she had no alternative but to leave her employment. It is obvious that she was not claiming to have an illness when she said that working in a standing position hurt her feet. She simply found employment in a restaurant too difficult from a physical point of view. Since no one doubted her credibility, a certificate would have added nothing to her testimony.
