Summary of Issue: Clarification

Decision 15309 Full Text of Decision 15309

Claimant simply said that as of 1-6 she was prepared to remove the restrictions. This was not a contradiction of her earlier statement. To say that she had from 10-5 been prepared to accept work which she agreed to accept on 1-6 would contradict but shenever said that.

Decision 14876 Full Text of Decision 14876

When a claimant gives an explanation concerning the context of an earlier statement, the Board must take the explanation into account in assessing whether the later statements are indeed contradictory to the earlier statements or whether a credible explanation exists. [p. 7]

Decision 13536 Full Text of Decision 13536

According to the application, not willing to work immediately as layoff temporary and would be returning to old job. Statement ambiguous and not conclusive. It was open to him to prove that he had in fact conducted a legitimate job search. Nothing prevented him changing his mind.

Decision 12672 Full Text of Decision 12672

The Board cannot totally bar the door to evidence given in explanation or clarification of previous statements hastily made, leaving aside questions of credibility. If this so-called principle (statements made before carry more weight) is true, one could never hope to give evidence in explanation or clarification. There is no such broad principle applicable to all circumstances except in situations turning strictlyon credibility.

Decision 11041 Full Text of Decision 11041

Held in the past that it is correct to afford more weight to a 1st statement. Not a steadfast principle. Here the 2 statements are not contradictory. The second is simply an expansion of the first. The Board erred in ascribing too much importance to the1st.