REVERSED the Board’s ruling which did not allow a hearing to determine the applicability of §25-a. Specifically, when the Special Fund for Reopened Cases (Fund) sought to have a hearing to determine if there were advance payments by the employer to the claimant. The Law Judge, affirmed by a Board panel, denied that request. In reversing the Board the Court noted that, “Inasmuch as the record does not contain an affidavit or testimony of claimant or any other evidence regarding whether claimant was performing light or limited duties and, if so, whether she received full wages, we find that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and the matter must be remitted for further development of the record.”
Prevailing party represented by: Jill B. Singer of counsel to the Special Funds Conservation Committee for Special Fund for Reopened Cases, respondent. [39248-7862]
Most members of the Sensitive Investigative Unit receive mandatory training and vetting by the DEA. But several current and former DEA agents said despite that vetting, the unit has long had a poor record of keeping information out of the hands of criminals. Among the most glaring problems, they say, is that Mexico doesn’t allow the DEA to scrutinize the unit’s supervisors in the same way as it does the unit’s members. Two law enforcement officials close to the Zetas case said their own inquiries revealed that a supervisor in the SIU was responsible. Former senior members of the Mexican Federal Police who worked closely with the unit did not respond to multiple requests for interviews.