| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| claim procedure |
filing an application |
time prescribed |
|
Summary:
The Umpire had set aside the decision of the BOR which had confirmed the Commission's decision to the effect that the claimant was not entitled to benefits because he had failed to fill-out or file his subsequent claims within the time limit prescribed in s. 10 of the EIA. The FCA held that the Umpire had no authority yo intervene unless he explained why the BOR's decision was unreasonable, which he did not do. In fact, in his analysis of s. 10(5) of the EIA, the Umpire simply substituted his assessment of the facts for that of the BOR.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
applicability |
subsequent claim |
|
Summary:
The Umpire had set aside the decision of the BOR which had confirmed the Commission's decision to the effect that the claimant was not entitled to benefits because he had failed to fill-out or file his subsequent claims within the time limit prescribed in s. 10 of the EIA. The FCA held that the Umpire had no authority yo intervene unless he explained why the BOR's decision was unreasonable, which he did not do. In fact, in his analysis of s. 10(5) of the EIA, the Umpire simply substituted his assessment of the facts for that of the BOR.
