Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly regarded itself as not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU) by mistake. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no reason to disagree with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the Appellant had not pointed to any procedural irregularity which would justify overturning the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s arguments on appeal were essentially that she disagreed with the conclusions of the medical practitioners and sought to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to accept her view, just as she did before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not sufficient for the Appellant merely to submit her disagreement and repeat her previous arguments to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.