Decision 21932
Full Text of Decision 21932
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
right of appeal |
delay in scheduling hearing |
|
Summary:
Claimant raised the issue of delay of more than one year in hearing this appeal by the Umpire. Case law dealing with rights under criminal law examined. This is not such a case. I do not believe that prejudice can be inferred from the delay in this case. Not a ground for appeal.
other summary
| Other Issue(s): |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| basic concepts |
disqualification |
minimum |
|
| umpires |
jurisdiction |
question not at issue |
|
Decision 20961
Full Text of Decision 20961
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
right of appeal |
delay in scheduling hearing |
|
Summary:
It is argued that the 21-month delay (between filing the appeal and date of hearing) is in and of itself unreasonable. CUB 16415 quoted. The delay in issue is not in itself unreasonable and further, it has not caused prejudice to claimants such as wouldrender it unreasonable.
Decision 16415
Full Text of Decision 16415
summary
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| umpires |
right of appeal |
delay in scheduling hearing |
|
Summary:
According to the insured, the 16-month delay between filing the appeal and the hearing date is much too long and is equivalent to justice denied. Argument not considered valid. A delay of this length where the freedom and security of the person are not involved does not appear unreasonable.
