爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing, noting that the Appellant was not entitled to call evidence on appeal that she should have presented to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly regarded itself as not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT made no error in its finding that the ABCC’s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies which was allegedly paid to the Appellant by the United Nations Federal Credit Union (爆料网FCU) by mistake. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was quite correct in its opinion that the proper way for the Appellant to request reconsideration of the conclusions reached by the Medical Services Division was to make use of Article 17 of Appendix D to have the matter re-examined by a group of medical experts. 爆料网AT held that it had no reason to disagree with the 爆料网DT finding that the Appellant had not pointed to any procedural irregularity which would justify overturning the contested decision. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant’s arguments on appeal were essentially that she disagreed with the conclusions of the medical practitioners and sought to persuade 爆料网AT to accept her view, just as she did before the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that it was not sufficient for the Appellant merely to submit her disagreement and repeat her previous arguments to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT reaffirmed its position that the appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision by the Secretary-General to uphold the recommendation of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) rejecting her claim for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules (Appendix D) for alleged injuries incurred during the course of a medical examination. 爆料网DT rejected the application.
Legal Principle(s)
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. An appellant must demonstrate that the lower court committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by 爆料网AT.