| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
new facts |
authority to reexamine |
|
Summary:
The claimant is a full-time university student. He is only available for work during certain hours and days of the week. His chances of finding employment are therefore limited because of his restrictions. Thus, the Umpire did not commit any error when he determined that the claimant did not establish that he was available for work during his period of full-time studies. In addition, the FCA concluded that the claimant could not introduce new evidence because the pre-existing conditions necessary to introduce such evidence did not exist.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
proof |
charter |
|
Summary:
The claimant is a full-time university student. He is only available for work during certain hours and days of the week. His chances of finding employment are therefore limited because of his restrictions. Thus, the Umpire did not commit any error when he determined that the claimant did not establish that he was available for work during his period of full-time studies. In addition, the FCA concluded that the claimant could not introduce new evidence because the pre-existing conditions necessary to introduce such evidence did not exist.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
hours of work |
|
Summary:
The claimant is a full-time university student. He is only available for work during certain hours and days of the week. His chances of finding employment are therefore limited because of his restrictions. Thus, the Umpire did not commit any error when he determined that the claimant did not establish that he was available for work during his period of full-time studies. In addition, the FCA concluded that the claimant could not introduce new evidence because the pre-existing conditions necessary to introduce such evidence did not exist.
