appendix d: summaries of selected cases 1-3. Guidance on sickness benefit during processing of disability pension case While processing an application for disability pension from a man who was absent from work due to sickness, a local authority was informed that the applicant’s employer was located in Greenland, and that the applicant expected to be dismissed after 120 days of absence due to sickness and did not expect to return to the labour market. At that time the man was still receiving a salary, and the payment of the salary continued until his employment ceased. As the Greenland employer had not applied for refund of sickness benefit and as the man had not applied for sickness benefit, no sickness benefit was paid when his salary payments ceased. The Employment Appeals Board upheld the local authority’s decision that the man was not entitled to sickness benefit. Due to the increased obligation to provide guidance in social matters, the Ombudsman found that the local authority ought to have guided the man on the rules pertaining to sickness benefit. Following a recommendation from the Ombudsman, the Employment Appeals Board reopened the case and decided that the man should be put in a position as if he had received correct guidance. (Case No. 2010-2395-0050) 1-4. Proof that summons to meeting had reached person on sickness benefit. Free legal aid A local authority stopped payments of sickness benefit to a woman because she had not attended an information meeting. The woman stated that she had never received a summons to the meeting. The local authority and the Employment Appeals Board assumed that the ­summons had reached the woman, based on the facts that the letter had not been returned to the local authority and that there were no reports from the postal service of any irregularities in postal deliveries. The Ombudsman stated, among other things, that the burden of proof that a letter has reached the intended recipient rests with the administrative author- 105