Opinion ID: 475561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Scope of the Hearing on Remand

Text: 11 Monark next argues that the ALJ and the Board improperly limited the scope of the hearing on remand to the specific incidents alleged in the nine objections. The ALJ and the Board erred, contends Monark, in rejecting evidence it proffered that, while not relating to the specific incidents alleged in the nine objections, did deal with the issue of coercion. Monark's contention is clearly without merit. Our remand of this case was a limited one, requiring the Board to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve issues of fact raised by objections 15b, c, d, e, f, g, 23a and b, and the last assertion in objection 11. Monark Boat Co., 713 F.2d at 362. In proffering evidence outside the scope of those specific factual issues, Monark attempted to expand the scope of the hearing on remand, in effect trying for a second bite at the apple. The ALJ and the Board did not err in limiting the scope of the hearing to the nine specific incidents.