| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Claimant brought evidence to BOR that she had health problems when false statements were made. BOR upheld the penalty but Umpire, based on FCA decision in Dunham (A-0708.95), decided to reduce it by 50%. The FCA ruled that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to reduce the penalty since the Commission and the BOR had exercised their discretion in a judicial manner.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
reconsideration of penalty |
reduction |
|
Summary:
Claimant brought evidence to BOR that she had health problems when false statements were made. BOR upheld the penalty but Umpire, based on FCA decision in Dunham (A-0708.95), decided to reduce it by 50%. The FCA ruled that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to reduce the penalty since the Commission and the BOR had exercised their discretion in a judicial manner.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
errors in law |
excess of jurisdiction |
|
Summary:
Umpire ruled that the penalty be repaid when claimant had regained her health in the amount of $100 per month until the full extinction of the debt. The FCA held that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to allow the claimant to repay the penalty by way of monthly installments. The Act does not confer such a power on an Umpire. The matter of arrangements for repayment of a penalty are left for the Commission to make with a claimant.
