In the first blog on Pacific Operators, I mentioned the lack of deference to the Director's position. The Director had not briefed the case at the Ninth Circuit, which may explain the way the Supreme Court case was argued. I listed one of the deference cases erroneously. "Sizemore" is a Benefits Review Board case dealing with situations where, in their opinion, permanent cases suddenly become temporary all over again. The deference case is "Skidmore". Oops.
The classic correction story:
"Last week in our feature of General [X], we referred to him as "battle scared". We apologize for the mistake. We should, of course, have written "bottle scarred".
No comments:
Post a Comment