| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| proof |
credibility |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant requested sick benefits for the period between May 7 and July 1, 2006. She reported to the Commission that she received no earnings during this period. During its investigation, the Commission received pay statements from her employer indicating that the claimant returned to work on May 30, 2006. The Commission concluded that she had been overpaid benefits and that she knowingly made false or misleading representations. It assessed her with a penalty of $1005. The FCA stated that the BOR adequately acknowledged the evidence against the claimant. It specifically referred to the employer's pay slips and held that they were "inconsistent and shoddy." The Board noted that the employer's declaration was inconsistent with the evidence in the actual pay stubs and found the claimant's evidence to be more consistent. The FCA allowed the application stating that the BOR is better placed than the Umpire and FCA to weigh evidence and assess credibility.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
earnings |
|
|
Summary:
The claimant requested sick benefits for the period between May 7 and July 1, 2006. She reported to the Commission that she received no earnings during this period. During its investigation, the Commission received pay statements from her employer indicating that the claimant returned to work on May 30, 2006. The Commission concluded that she had been overpaid benefits and that she knowingly made false or misleading representations. It assessed her with a penalty of $1005. The FCA stated that the BOR adequately acknowledged the evidence against the claimant. It specifically referred to the employer's pay slips and held that they were "inconsistent and shoddy." The Board noted that the employer's declaration was inconsistent with the evidence in the actual pay stubs and found the claimant's evidence to be more consistent. The FCA allowed the application stating that the BOR is better placed than the Umpire and FCA to weigh evidence and assess credibility.
