Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to undertake a proper review of the case since the audio recording of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT proceedings contained the final submissions of both counsels, but not the testimony of the two witnesses and the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s request for documents relating to the calculation of reasonable and customary expenses as to whether the Administration properly calculated ¡°reasonable and customary¡± expenses was a central issue in contention and was addressed extensively by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a de novo determination, including the disclosure of the requested documents, relevant materials, and any other documents relevant to the calculation of reasonable and customary expenses.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant, a locally recruited staff member serving in Turkey, incurred significant medical expenses after being hospitalised on an emergency basis whilst on annual leave in Switzerland. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR paid for those expenses and later informed the Applicant they would recover the difference between the cost of such treatment in Turkey and Switzerland from the Applicant, a decision challenged by the Applicant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT indicated that the conditions for reimbursement and the extent of coverage were governed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Medical Insurance Plan (MIP) Rules, which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had accurately applied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Administration was correct not to apply the stop-loss provision because it would have removed the limitation of the coverage to those reasonable and customary expenses incurred at the duty station and instead would have expanded the coverage worldwide, which was contrary to the terms of the MIP Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further rejected the Applicant¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR had an obligation to reimburse him on account of an attestation he had received from human resources in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s Ankara office to facilitate a visa for private travel as the said attestation had no legal authority to derogate from the MIP rules. The Applicant was also requesting disclosure of several documentation in which one of them included the document relevant to the calculation of ¡°reasonable and customary expenses¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT denied the Applicant¡¯s motion on the grounds that the documents were not relevant.
Legal Principle(s)
An incomplete audio recording of the oral hearing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may prevent Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT from undertaking a proper review of a case.