| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Umpire stated that as the claimant was not present and did not testify before the BOR, and as the latter's decision was based on their assesment of the appeal docket, he ruled that the assesment of the BOR could not be said to be superior of the assesment which he could make. FCA found that the Umpire commited an error of law because he improperly substituted his opinion for that of the BOR without identifying an error of law or erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner.
