What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Applicant entitled to reimbursement because she chose to apply voucher for computer equipment after vocational consultant advice and discussion of computer skills training; no evidence purchase was for ineligible purpose.
From the decision · page 53.) Based upon this evidence, and based upon the absence of evidence suggesting that applicant purchased the computer equipment for any purpose that could render it ineligible for reimbursement, we conclude that applicant is entitled to reimbursement under section 4658.7(e)(5).
Defendant lacked evidence supporting its determination that applicant was not entitled to reimbursement; no evidence of reasonable, good-faith reliance on statutory interpretation.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant purchased computer equipment after receiving advice from vocational consultant and discussing General Office (Computer Skills) training option.
Favours Applicant prevailed