| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $7,740 imposed initially but reduced twice by the Commission based on extenuating circumstances. Umpire concluded that the BOR should review the matter once more to either reduce or vary the penalty or to write it off. The FCA held that the Commission had exercised its discretion in a judicial manner and that neither the BOR or the Umpire could write-off a penalty or overpayment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $7,740 imposed initially but reduced twice by the Commission based on extenuating circumstances. Umpire concluded that the BOR should review the matter once more to either reduce or vary the penalty or to write it off. The FCA held that the Commission had exercised its discretion in a judicial manner and that neither the BOR or the Umpire could write-off a penalty or overpayment.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Penalty of $7,740 imposed initially but reduced twice by the Commission based on extenuating circumstances. Umpire concluded that the BOR should review the matter once more to either reduce or vary the penalty or to write it off. The FCA held that the Commission had exercised its discretion in a judicial manner and that neither the BOR or the Umpire could write-off a penalty or overpayment.
