Unemployment Compensation Hearings: Best Evidence Rule Not Very Great. d
Unemployment Compensation Referee's hearings, due to their nature as administrative hearings and of limited scope, traditionally have allowed a somewhat lax applying of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. Generally, this tends toward keeping the hearings fast moving, relatively inexpensive to litigate, efficient, and to the point. I stress the word "lax," in contrast to say "eliminated," as the rules of evidence typically are not discarded or vitiated, but simply given sound judgment application to some quasi-judicial hearing in connection with the very narrow issue of whether the first is qualified to receive government benefits during one's unemployment.
In most cases, easing up on the rules makes a great deal of sense as litigants, specially the newly cash strapped claimant, has not yet got your money to call in experts, sub?na extensive records, or find and secure multiple witnesses. Indeed, a very approach would manage to only serve to mud inside the gears associated with an already overburdened Department of Labor regarding such generally simple issues. So, for example, some flexibility on hearsay is allowed, and allowing the admission of medical records without having a medical expert, as well as allowing some "narrative" testimony, if perhaps with the practical objective of bringing these matters with a relatively speedy and efficient close.
I do think the normal flexibility around the rules of evidence makes some sense and therefore i generally do not possess a problem with it, especially since I have never had an experience the spot that the flexibility on the rules centered on the biggest issues or any dispostive aspect of the many cases We have handled. Actually, allow me one caveat on that statement: every time a Referee's laxity around the rules using a central issue causes me to reduce a case, I have got had pretty consistent success in receiving the decision overturned by the Board of Review on appeal.
So, why am I writing everything? Let us consentrate on a specialized rule of evidence, specifically Rule 1002, which reads as follows:
A unique writing, recording, or photograph is necessary in an effort to prove its content unless these rules, other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, or maybe a statute provides otherwise.
This rule is commonly known as "the most effective evidence rule," and, as we discussed it, more or less, demands the best available version or copy (or what have you ever) of a sheet of evidence is going to be produced within a hearing instead of a duplicate. So, one example is, an authentic signed copy on the contract is invariably preferred towards a duplicate. How this rule could well be employed is when an attorney, through his witness, attempts to introduce that copy as evidence. The opposing attorney would object for the basis the fact that the copy is not actually "the perfect evidence" along with the judge would rule on whether or not this was. Whether or not it was not the most effective evidence, the objection would certainly be sustained additionally, the document will be inadmissible.
Recently i possessed a case before an Unemployment Compensation Referee in Philadelphia. The opposition (the business) aimed to introduce a Collective Bargaining Agreement (which put forth relevant issues for the case I used to be handling) into evidence. The copy of aforesaid Agreement presented through the employer failed to possess a signature from the employer! I objected into the admission of your Agreement on the basis it was not the very best evidence; a legal contract with no signature is hardly a contract!
The Referee's ruling on my own objection was quite startling as well as being the inspiration of this article. I would not have been surprised if my objection was overruled according to the above mentined-mentioned requirement of efficiency or something like this; one example is, the Referee could have stated that the employer's testimony identified the copy of Agreement being a true and accurate copy of your original Agreement executed by, and applicable to, both parties whether or not the signatures were present. Unfortunately, this really is not how much the Referee ruled. He ruled that, by order of his superiors throughout the Department of Labor, the ideal evidence rule will no longer be applied at unemployment compensation hearings and, therefore, any objections made on that basis will undoubtedly be overruled.
Should you looking for more info about ODJFS Unemployment Login visit our webiste.
