Unemployment Compensation Hearings: Best Evidence Rule Much Less Great. d
Unemployment Compensation Referee's hearings, due to their nature as administrative hearings as well as limited scope, traditionally have allowed a somewhat lax implementation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. Most of the time, this tends toward keeping the hearings fast moving, comparatively cheap to litigate, efficient, and to the point. I stress the saying "lax," rather than say "eliminated," since the rules of evidence are definitely not disposed of or vitiated, but simply given good sense application with a quasi-judicial hearing regarding the very narrow issue of whether the initial one is qualified for receive government benefits during one's unemployment.
Usually, easing through to the principles makes a considerable amount of sense as litigants, specially the newly cash strapped claimant, has not yet got the bucks to contact experts, sub?na extensive records, or find and secure multiple witnesses. Indeed, this type of approach would find a way to only help to mud inside the gears of some already overburdened Department of Labor regarding such generally simple issues. So, as an example, some flexibility on hearsay is allowed, together with allowing the admission of medical records with out a medical expert, and even allowing some "narrative" testimony, if perhaps for those practical aim of bringing these matters to the relatively speedy and efficient close.
I believe the overall flexibility in the rules of evidence makes some sense and therefore i generally do not have a problem with it, especially since I have never had an experience the place that the flexibility inside the rules focused on the leading issues or any dispostive aspect of the many cases I have got handled. Actually, allow me one caveat on that statement: anytime a Referee's laxity to the rules on your central issue causes me to shed an instance, I had had pretty consistent success in having the decision overturned by way of the Board of Review on appeal.
So, why am I writing this all? Let us center on a specific rule of evidence, specifically Rule 1002, which reads as follows:
An authentic writing, recording, or photograph is needed to prove its content unless these rules, other rules prescribed through the Supreme Court, or a statute provides otherwise.
This rule is commonly known as "the perfect evidence rule," and, as we discussed it, basically, requires the best available version or copy (or what perhaps you have) of a sheet of evidence is usually to be produced with a hearing rather than a duplicate. So, for instance, a genuine signed copy of an contract is usually preferred to a duplicate. The best way this rule could well be employed is that if a legal professional, through his witness, attempts to introduce that copy as evidence. The opposing attorney would object on the basis the fact that copy will not be "the ideal evidence" and also judge would rule on whether or not it was. Whether or not it was not the most beneficial evidence, the objection would certainly be sustained and the document could well be inadmissible.
Recently, i enjoyed a case before an Unemployment Compensation Referee in Philadelphia. The opposition (the employer) made an effort to introduce a Collective Bargaining Agreement (which organized relevant issues towards the case I found myself handling) into evidence. The copy of aforesaid Agreement presented via the employer failed to contain a signature coming from the employer! I objected for the admission on the Agreement around the basis so it was not the most suitable evidence; a legal contract with no signature is virtually no contract!
The Referee's ruling on my small objection was quite startling and is also the inspiration of this particular article. I would not have been surprised if my objection was overruled according to the above-mentioned dependence on efficiency or something that is such as that; by way of example, the Referee can have asserted that the employer's testimony identified the copy of Agreement being a true and accurate copy with the original Agreement executed by, and applicable to, the two of you no matter whether the signatures were present. Unfortunately, this really is not what are the Referee ruled. He ruled that, by order of his superiors from the Department of Labor, the ideal evidence rule will not be applied at unemployment compensation hearings and, therefore, any objections made on that basis will probably be overruled.
When you looking for more information about ODJFS Unemployment Login visit our webiste.
