| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant acknowledged the misrepresentations and the resulting overpayment but argued against the penalty saying that the misrepresentations were not made intentionally and resulted from a human error and confusion caused by many things including the employer's pay system. In rejecting the claimant's application, the Court said that he drew 17 weeks of benefits while working at continuous full-time employment and should have reported his work even if he was in doubt as to the exact amount of his earnings. The Court also said that a waiver of a penalty on a prior claim by the Commission must have made the claimant aware of his obligation to be truthful in his reports.
