| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
waiting for grievance settlement or judgment |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant delayed filing his application for benefits for over 4 years. He stated that he relied on the advice of his legal counsel who advised him not to file a claim for benefits, while the litigation with his former employer was in progress. Referring to the FCA decision in Ehman (A-0360.95), the Umpire held that the test is to demonstrate what a reasonable and prudent person would do and that the claimant failed to demonstrate adherence thereto. Reliance on the advice of his lawyer will not be accepted as "good cause" to explain the delay.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
misinformation from third party |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant delayed filing his application for benefits for over 4 years. He stated that he relied on the advice of his legal counsel who advised him not to file a claim for benefits, while the litigation with his former employer was in progress. Referring to the FCA decision in Ehman (A-0360.95), the Umpire held that the test is to demonstrate what a reasonable and prudent person would do and that the claimant failed to demonstrate adherence thereto. Reliance on the advice of his lawyer will not be accepted as "good cause" to explain the delay.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| antedate |
conscious choice |
preoccupation |
|
Summary:
Claimant delayed filing his application for benefits for over 4 years. He stated that he relied on the advice of his legal counsel who advised him not to file a claim for benefits, while the litigation with his former employer was in progress. Referring to the FCA decision in Ehman (A-0360.95), the Umpire held that the test is to demonstrate what a reasonable and prudent person would do and that the claimant failed to demonstrate adherence thereto. Reliance on the advice of his lawyer will not be accepted as "good cause" to explain the delay.
