Polewsky v. Vermont Dept. of Employment
& Training, 96-JSA-4 (ALJ Feb. 4, 1998)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
800 K STREET, NW, SUITE 400N
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-8002
Date: February 4, 1998
Case No.: 96-JSA-4
In the Matter of:
VICTOR POLEWSKY, Complainant
v.
VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING, ET AL., Respondents
BEFORE: John M. Vittone
Chief Administrative Law Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND TO CORRECT
ERROR
On December 1, 1997, I affirmed the decision of the Regional
Administrator and remanded the above-captioned matter to the state agency for further proceedings
consistent with my decision. However, on December 17, 1997, Complainant filed a Motion to
Correct Errors and to Reconsider Decision and Order Remanding Case. Complainant points
out that the December 1, 1997 Decision and Order erroneously states that the initial complaint in this
case was filed on April 8, 1982. In actuality, the complaint was filed on April 8,
1992. Further, Complainant contends that the Decision and Order should be reconsidered
because it makes "no reference whatsoever to the petitioner's brief, his cross-appeal, nor his
reasons against remand to the party' responsible for most of the improprieties." See
Complainant's Motion to Correct Errors and to Reconsider Decision and Order Remanding
Case (Dec. 17, 1997).
After additional review of my Decision, it is clear that the misstated filing date
of the complaint is a harmless error. The Complainant has not been prejudiced by the error, nor has
the mistake affected my decision. It is a trivial error which has no substantial impact on the rights
of the Complainant.
Moreover, the Decision and Order Remanding Case is merely an
affirmation of the decision of the Regional Administrator. It is not a decision based on the merits
of the case. Accordingly, I find that any failure to consider Complainant's arguments or his
"cross-appeal" is likewise harmless error.
Complainant's Motion to Correct Errors and to Reconsider Decision and
Order Remanding Case is thus hereby DENIED.