remanding case where “pro se applicant for entitlement benefits has potentially been misled as to her appellate rights and may have received an inadequate opportunity to present her arguments to the agency” because "agency’s notice [of appeals process] was ambiguous” (footnote omitted)
How later courts described this case
- remanding case where “pro se applicant for entitlement benefits has potentially been misled as to her appellate rights and may have received an inadequate opportunity to present her arguments to the agency” because "agency’s notice [of appeals process] was ambiguous” (footnote omitted)
- directing CRB on remand to consider humanitarian purpose of WCA
- language in decision suggested the time period for filing a second-level appeal would not be rigidly applied
- “pro se applicant for entitlement benefits [ ] potentially misled as to her appellate rights”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PRYOR, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
Looking to the merits of petitioner’s argument, it appears that the pertinent language of the statute which controls eligibility for unemployment compensation, D.C. Code § 46-108 (c) (1986 Supp.), is plain and straightforward. It requires a claimant to have “been paid” wages in at least two quarters of her base period. For me, this case does not involve so much a deference *1202 to an agency s construction of its statute, but more an application of clearly drafted language.
I recognize that, from petitioner’s position, the language seems unduly rigid. Perhaps the legislature should take a hard look at the statute to see if a change is warranted.
I would affirm.