Table Of ContentAPPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM
I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION
Last/Name of Business First Middle
Claimant Name
Claimant ID Claim ID
Claim Type Business Economic Loss
Law Firm
II. DECISION
Denial Upheld
Denial Overturned
III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION
Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your
decision.
Claim should have been excluded.
Claim should have been denied.
Claim should not have been excluded.
Claim should not have been denied.
No error.
Comment (optional):
Claimant, an attorney in , appeals the denial of his BEL claim for failure to satisfy any of the
causation requirements of the Settlement Agreement.Claimant originally submitted a Failed Business Claim but
was notified by the Claims Center on May 7,2013, his claim was reclassified as a BEL claim.On May
31,2013,claimant received an incompleteness notice requiring submission of additional documents.Claimant was
notified on July 2,2013, his claim was denied and he requested reconsideration which was denied on July
16,2013.On that same date claimant submitted additional documents to show he satisfied the decline-only
revenue pattern which could not have been timely considered beforehand by the Claims Administrator. BP in its
response to this appeal declares that this new data cannot be raised and considered in resolution of this
appeal.Given the unusual, convoluted circumstances in the processing of this claim, this panelist concludes
procedural fairness warrants remand of this claim to the Claims Administrator to consider all relevant
documentation submitted by claimant so that any decision rendered comports adequately with all notions of
procedural due process.
APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM
I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION
Last/Name of Business First Middle
Claimant Name
Claimant ID Claim ID
Claim Type Business Economic Loss
Law Firm
II. DECISION
Denial Upheld
Denial Overturned
III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION
Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your
decision.
Claim should have been excluded.
Claim should have been denied.
Claim should not have been excluded.
Claim should not have been denied.
No error.
Comment (optional):
Claimant, a cotton farmer in northern appeals the denial of its BEL claim for failure to satisfy any of
the causation requirements of the Settlement Agreement.Claimant contends the Claims Administrator misapplied
the terms of the Settlement Agreement and excluded certain components of revenue,viz.,interest income, in
calculating claimant's total revenue to measure whether the V-shaped Revenue Pattern causation requirements
were satisfied. A review of the record discloses that such misapplication of the Settlement Agreement occurred
here similar to that noted in Appeal Panel Decision 2013-308. In light of this error this claim should be
reevaluated.
APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM
I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION
Last/Name of Business First Middle
Claimant Name
Claimant ID Claim ID
Claim Type Vessel Physical Damage
Law Firm
II. DECISION
Denial Upheld
Denial Overturned
III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION
Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your
decision.
Claim should have been excluded.
Claim should have been denied.
Claim should not have been excluded.
Claim should not have been denied.
No error.
Comment (optional):
Claimant,a vessel owner in south appeals the denial of its Vessel Physical Damage Claim based on the
exclusion contained in Exhibit 14,Section 1.A ii,of the Settlement Agreement.Claimant argues such exclusion is
inapplicable because it entered into a contract on January 5,2011,with ,a subcontractor in
privity with BP to do oil spill remedial work as a VoO participant.It is apparent from other recent panel decisions
that this contracual relationship is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and to
render claimant a recognizable VoO participant outside the embrace of the exclusionary provisions of the
Settlement Agreement.Most importantly,this contract relied on by claimant was executed on January
5,2011,well after the VoO program officially ended on November 26,2010. There is no error.The decision of the
Claims Administrator is affirmed and the appeal of claimant is denied.
APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM
I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION
Last/Name of Business First Middle
Claimant Name
Claimant ID Claim ID
Claim Type Seafood Compensation Program
Law Firm
II. DECISION
Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP’s Final Proposal or the Claimant’s Final Proposal as the
final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision.
Compensation Amount $0
BP’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium 0
Prior Payment Offset $0
Compensation Amount
$135,281
Claimant’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium
0
Prior Payment Offset
$0
III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION
Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your
decision.
Error in documentation review.
Error in calculation.
Error in RTP multiplier.
Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount.
No error.
Comment (optional):
This claim is an eligible Seafood Compensation Program award. It required careful review due to several missed
deadlines. BP demands denial of the claim due to the failure of Claimant to timely respond for documentation
from the Administrator. However, after review of the Administrator's excusable neglect policy, this panel
member finds the claim was properly handled and it is hereby affirmed.
APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM
I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION
Last/Name of Business First Middle
Claimant Name
Claimant ID Claim ID
Claim Type Seafood Compensation Program
Law Firm
II. DECISION
Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP’s Final Proposal or the Claimant’s Final Proposal as the
final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision.
Compensation Amount $19,645.43
BP’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium 0
Prior Payment Offset
$103,692.34
Compensation Amount
$36,951.79
Claimant’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium
0
Prior Payment Offset
$103,692.34
III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION
Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your
decision.
Error in documentation review.
Error in calculation.
Error in RTP multiplier.
Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount.
No error.
Comment (optional):
Claimant, a shrimp boat owner in was awarded the base sum of $2,123.83 for his seafood
compensation claim.He asserts error alleging the Claims Administrator in selecting benchmark revenue for 2009
used the sum of $13,620.83,derived from trip tickets, instead of the sum of $25,619.93,which conforms to
revenues reported on his 2009 tax return and landing data documents from a local docking facility.BP responds
and says it was proper for the Claims Administrator to rely on trip tickets provided by
While these documents are reliable they are not a complete,accurate record of claimant's shrimping
activities for 2009 as they cover only the months of June,July,August and October 2009.The landing data
document from the same company shows total revenues from shrimping activity in 2009 at $25,619.93, the
same sum as reported on claimant's tax return for 2009.For this reason claimant should prevail and his final
proposal is accepted.
APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM
I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION
Last/Name of Business First Middle
Claimant Name
Claimant ID Claim ID
Claim Type Seafood Compensation Program
Law Firm
II. DECISION
Select the Compensation Amount set forth in either BP’s Final Proposal or the Claimant’s Final Proposal as the
final outcome on the claim and check the appropriate box to signify your decision.
Compensation Amount $1,261.13
BP’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium 2.25
Prior Payment Offset
$0
Compensation Amount
$20,000
Claimant’s Final Proposal Risk Transfer Premium
2.25
Prior Payment Offset
$0
III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION
Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your
decision.
Error in documentation review.
Error in calculation.
Error in RTP multiplier.
Error in Prior Spill-Related Payment Amount.
No error.
Comment (optional):
Claimant appeals the award to him as a category 1 crewmember under the Seafood Crew Compensation
Plan.Claimant challenges the adequacy of the award resulting allegedly from the Claims Administrator's failure
to consider the customary manner in which seafood crew members are compensated;failure to provide
compensation for future losses;and failure to provide a quick-pay option previously available to eligible GCCF
claimants.The first issue is governed by Exhibit 10 of the Settlement Agreement which establishes a precise
protocol for measuring crew member compensation.A portion of gross sales claimant customarily received as a
deckhand is not a part of the formula established by the Settlement Agreement.Future losses sought by
claimant are addressed by the RTP multiplier that account for future losses in the Settlement
Agreement.Lastly,the Settlement Agreement supersedes any remedy previously available to GCCF claimants and
claimant's rights thereto are governed now by the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.There is no error.
The award is affirmed and the appeal of claimant is denied.
APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM
I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION
Last/Name of Business First Middle
Claimant Name
Claimant ID Claim ID
Claim Type Real Property Sales
Law Firm
Street Parish/ County
Parcel Address
City State Zip Code
Property Tax
Parcel ID
Assessment ID
II. DECISION
Denial Upheld
Denial Overturned
III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION
Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your
decision.
Claim should have been excluded.
Claim should have been denied.
Claim should not have been excluded.
Claim should not have been denied.
No error.
Comment (optional):
Claimant appeals the reconsidered denial of her Real Property Sales claim. She represents herself and filed no
supporting memorandum, instead submitting a copy of a letter dated June of 2011 notifying her that she has
the right to seek recourse if she disagrees with the amount of payment under a prior program. Unfortunately for
her, subsequent to that letter she received and accepted payment from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility and on
July 4, 2011 signed a release and covenant not to sue with the GCCF. Under Section 2.2.6, her receipt of this
payment and subsequent execution of the release excludes her from any further right to seek payment under
the Settlement Agreement unless it is under the VoO program or for Vessel Physical Damage. Real Property
Sales claims are not similarly excluded from the release, and thus the appeal must be denied.
APPEAL PANEL DECISION FORM
I. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM INFORMATION
Last/Name of Business First Middle
Claimant Name
Claimant ID Claim ID
Claim Type Wetlands Real Property
Law Firm
Street Parish/ County
Parcel Address
City State Zip Code
Property Tax
Parcel ID
Assessment ID
II. DECISION
Denial Upheld
Denial Overturned
III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION
Please select the primary basis for your decision. You may also write a comment describing the basis for your
decision.
Claim should have been excluded.
Claim should have been denied.
Claim should not have been excluded.
Claim should not have been denied.
No error.
Comment (optional):
Written reasons uploaded
Description:III. PRIMARY BASIS FOR PANELIST DECISION. Please select the primary basis
.. There is an untitled printout in the record which appears to list the “Total True
.. evidence that a SCAT or NRT oil assessment was conducted on the property,
