Get the free 96-1332.doc - dol

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of DAVID C. BURGESS and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Roanoke, Va. Docket No. 961332; Submitted on the Record; Issued

In the course of doing so, it has determined that the hearing officer's denial of appellants claim is not barred by error, but need only be resolved as a matter of law. Thus, the Board orders and declares that that application for review be granted. The action of the hearing officer was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable under the circumstances, and his findings (that appellants have made a bona fide error) are not subject to any challenge. The decision to deny the application for reconsideration is affirmed. THE CHAMBERS OF COMMONS THE PARTIES are advised that, pursuant to 5 U. S. C. § 552(a) and 15 U. S. C. § 621, the Secretary of Labor has ordered a hearing for appellants to address whether, under the applicable law, an appeal should be taken to the Board of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Whether an appeal should be taken is discussed in this opinion only to inform the parties about the decision whether to file an appeal (or stay) to the Board of Appeals. Whether to file an appeal as a matter of right to the Board of Appeals is presented in the appendix to this opinion, and will be discussed only to the extent needed to inform the parties of the parties' options. Accordingly, nothing in this opinion will be deemed to limit or expand the relief which appellants or the Department may seek on appeal to the Board of Appeals. Appellants file a timely notice of appeal in the appropriate circuit. The Department's motion for review is granted, and the district court's March 2 order denying the Department and the Postal Service's Motion for Summary Judgment is vacated. The decision of this Court is affirmed. (Dot. No. 97-26 at 5.) CONCLUSION The Department and the Postal Service's appeal was improper because the hearing officer's denial of appellants' claim was based on the testimony of post office employee's who testified that appellants were not, in fact, fired unlawfully. The hearing officer, who never spoke directly with appellants, failed to consider the evidence to determine the truth of the matter asserted. In short, the hearing officer's decision rested on the testimony of post office employees who were never sworn witnesses who provided nothing more than the employee's view of the facts.

For pdfFiller’s FAQs

Where do I find 96-1332doc - dol?

The pdfFiller premium subscription gives you access to a large library of fillable forms (over 25 million fillable templates) that you can download, fill out, print, and sign. In the library, you'll have no problem discovering state-specific 96-1332doc - dol and other forms. Find the template you want and tweak it with powerful editing tools.

Can I edit 96-1332doc - dol on an iOS device?

You can. Using the pdfFiller iOS app, you can edit, distribute, and sign 96-1332doc - dol. Install it in seconds at the Apple Store. The app is free, but you must register to buy a subscription or start a free trial.

How do I edit 96-1332doc - dol on an Android device?

You can. With the pdfFiller Android app, you can edit, sign, and distribute 96-1332doc - dol from anywhere with an internet connection. Take use of the app's mobile capabilities.