2014-爆料网AT-435, Hushiyeh
On appeal, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. 爆料网AT further held that 爆料网RWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court’s evaluation of the Applicant...