Unemployment Compensation Hearings: Best Evidence Rule Not Great. d
Unemployment Compensation Referee's hearings, due to their nature as administrative hearings and also of limited scope, traditionally have allowed a somewhat lax putting on the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. Usually, this tends toward keeping the hearings fast moving, comparatively cheap to litigate, efficient, and to the level. I stress the expression "lax," compared with say "eliminated," because rules of evidence are definitely not discarded or vitiated, but simply given common sense application to a quasi-judicial hearing in regards to the very narrow issue of whether the first is eligible to receive government benefits during one's unemployment.
Generally speaking, easing on the guidelines makes loads of sense as litigants, particularly the newly cash strapped claimant, has not got the funds to contact experts, sub?na extensive records, or find and secure multiple witnesses. Indeed, such an approach would appear to only help to mud within the gears of already overburdened Department of Labor regarding such generally simple issues. So, one example is, some flexibility on hearsay is allowed, along with allowing the admission of medical records without a medical expert, as well as allowing some "narrative" testimony, only if to the practical goal of bringing these matters with a relatively speedy and efficient close.
I believe the typical flexibility over the rules of evidence makes some sense so i generally do not possess a problem with it, especially since i have have not had an experience the place that the flexibility during the rules focused on the most important issues or any dispostive aspect of the many cases We have handled. Actually, allow me one caveat on that statement: anytime a Referee's laxity over the rules on your central issue causes me to lose a case, I had had pretty consistent success in owning the decision overturned because of the Board of Review on appeal.
So, why am I writing everything? Let us deal with a certain rule of evidence, specifically Rule 1002, which reads the following:
A unique writing, recording, or photograph becomes necessary so as to prove its content unless these rules, other rules prescribed from the Supreme Court, as well as a statute provides otherwise.
This rule is typically referred to as "the most effective evidence rule," and, obviously it, basically, requires the best available version or copy (or what get you) of an item of evidence is intended to be produced on a hearing instead of a duplicate. So, one example is, a unique signed copy of any contract is always preferred to your duplicate. The best way this rule will be employed is that if a lawyer, through his witness, tries to introduce that copy as evidence. The opposing attorney would object in the basis the fact that copy is absolutely not "the most suitable evidence" and also judge would rule on whether or not this was. Whether or not this had not been the most effective evidence, the objection would certainly be sustained plus the document may be inadmissible.
Recently i enjoyed a case before an Unemployment Compensation Referee in Philadelphia. The opposition (the business) aimed to introduce a Collective Bargaining Agreement (which arranged relevant issues towards the case I found myself handling) into evidence. The copy of aforesaid Agreement presented from the employer did not have a signature from the employer! I objected to the admission of the Agreement on the basis that it really had not been the best evidence; a legal contract without a signature is hardly a contract!
The Referee's ruling on my objection was quite startling as well as being the inspiration in this article. I would not have been surprised if my objection was overruled on such basis as the above mentined-mentioned dependence on efficiency or something that is like that; for example, the Referee could possibly have said that the employer's testimony identified the copy of Agreement as being a true and accurate copy on the original Agreement executed by, and applicable to, the two of you regardless of whether the signatures were present. Unfortunately, which is not just what the Referee ruled. He ruled that, by order of his superiors in the Department of Labor, the best evidence rule will not be applied at unemployment compensation hearings and, therefore, any objections made on that basis will likely be overruled.
Should you looking to read more about ODJFS Unemployment Login visit our webiste.
