爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered appeals from both Mr. Sirhan and the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT exceeded its competence and erred in fact and law by rescinding the decision to terminate Mr. Sirhan on medical grounds. 爆料网AT held that the decision to convene a Medical Board more than one month after Mr. Sirhan’s service-incurred injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service with 爆料网RWA was reasonable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law in interpreting the Area Staff Rules as requiring 爆料网RWA to provide injured staff members adequate time for recovery before deciding to appoint a medical board to consider that staff member’s future employment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred by deciding that the decision to convene a medical board less than two months after the staff member’s service-incurred injury was unlawful and that therefore the termination was unlawful. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in taking into account additional evidence in the form of medical certificates produced by Mr. Sirhan after the Medical Board had reported to 爆料网RWA in order to overturn the conclusions of the Medical Board, noting that Mr. Sirhan had had the opportunity to present such evidence to the Medical Board before it reached its conclusions. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment was erroneous. 爆料网AT dismissed Mr. Sirhan’s appeal, allowed 爆料网RWA’s appeal, and set aside the 爆料网RWA DT judgment. Judge Colgan dissented.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his service on medical grounds. 爆料网RWA DT found that the decision to convene a medical board less than two months after the service-incurred injury in order to examine the staff member’s fitness for continued service was manifestly unreasonable and failed to give him adequate time for recovery. 爆料网RWA DT ordered rescission of the decision to terminate the staff member’s service on medical grounds or payment of compensation in lieu.
Legal Principle(s)
爆料网RWA has a broad discretion to require a staff member to undergo a medical examination at any time it may consider necessary. Additional evidence not presented at the first instance, despite a party having had the opportunity to present it at that time, is generally not admissible on appeal.