| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
for a previous overpayment |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant requested that the Commission antedate his application on February 28, 2006. He explained that his delay in applying for benefits was a result of a personal choice not to apply, and an intention to live off of his savings. He only decided to apply for benefits when he became aware of a potential debt to the Commission for a previous overpayment on a separate matter. According to this Court’s jurisprudence, in order to establish good cause, a claimant must demonstrate that he did what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in the same circumstances. The FCA found that the Umpire correctly set out the main legal principles that must guide any determination of whether there is “good cause” for allowing a claim to be antedated. The FCA found that inquiries about an overpayment have no bearing on whether or not there is good cause to antedate a claim.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
conscious choice |
need not urgent |
|
Summary:
The claimant requested that the Commission antedate his application on February 28, 2006. He explained that his delay in applying for benefits was a result of a personal choice not to apply, and an intention to live off of his savings. He only decided to apply for benefits when he became aware of a potential debt to the Commission for a previous overpayment on a separate matter. According to this Court’s jurisprudence, in order to establish good cause, a claimant must demonstrate that he did what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in the same circumstances. The FCA found that the Umpire correctly set out the main legal principles that must guide any determination of whether there is “good cause” for allowing a claim to be antedated. The FCA found that inquiries about an overpayment have no bearing on whether or not there is good cause to antedate a claim.
