| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
grounds of appeal |
capricious finding |
req'd |
Summary:
In this decision, the claimant wished to antedate his initial claim. The FCA decided to send the matter back to the Office of the Umpire with instructions that the claimant has not established proper motives to justify the delay in submitting his initial claim. The FCA reaffirmed the principle that an Umpire cannot intervene with respect to a question of fact unless the BOR's decision is unreasonable. In the present case, the Umpire erred as he failed to explain why the BOR's decision was unreasonable. Also, the Umpire committed an error by considering the «shortness of the delay» rather than the reasons to explain such delay.
