Unemployment Compensation Hearings: Best Evidence Rule Not So Great. c

Unemployment Compensation Referee's hearings, due to their nature as administrative hearings and also of limited scope, traditionally have allowed a somewhat lax applying of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. Usually, this tends toward keeping the hearings fast moving, relatively inexpensive to litigate, efficient, and to the level. I stress the message "lax," compared with say "eliminated," since the rules of evidence may not be discarded or vitiated, but simply given common sense application to your quasi-judicial hearing in regards to the very narrow issue of whether the first is entitled to receive government benefits during one's unemployment.

Typically, easing high on the rules makes a considerable amount of sense as litigants, especially the newly cash strapped claimant, has not got the funds to call in experts, sub?na extensive records, or find and secure multiple witnesses. Indeed, this kind of approach would seem to only help to mud up the gears of the already overburdened Department of Labor regarding such generally simple issues. So, such as, some flexibility on hearsay is allowed, not to mention allowing the admission of medical records without any medical expert, or perhaps allowing some "narrative" testimony, only if for any practical purpose of bringing these matters with a relatively speedy and efficient close.

I believe the typical flexibility for the rules of evidence makes some sense plus i generally do not have an issue with it, especially since i have have not had an experience the spot that the flexibility within the rules focused on the main issues or any dispostive aspect of the many cases I have got handled. Actually, allow me one caveat on that statement: whenever a Referee's laxity on the rules on the central issue causes me to lose a case, I had had pretty consistent success in keeping the decision overturned from the Board of Review on appeal.

So, why am I writing this? We will center on a given rule of evidence, specifically Rule 1002, which reads the following:

A genuine writing, recording, or photograph is called for so as to prove its content unless these rules, other rules prescribed by way of the Supreme Court, or maybe a statute provides otherwise.

This rule is often called "the best evidence rule," and, as you can see it, basically, necessitates the best available version or copy (or what maybe you have) of a bit of evidence is being produced at the hearing rather than a duplicate. So, as an example, an authentic signed copy of an contract is definitely preferred to the duplicate. Just how this rule could be employed is if a lawyer, through his witness, tries to introduce that copy as evidence. The opposing attorney would object within the basis that your copy is absolutely not "the most effective evidence" and also judge would rule on whether it was. Whether or not this was not the very best evidence, the objection would generally be sustained plus the document may be inadmissible.

Not long ago i stood a case before an Unemployment Compensation Referee in Philadelphia. The opposition (the business) aimed to introduce a Collective Bargaining Agreement (which arranged relevant issues on the case I found myself handling) into evidence. The copy of aforesaid Agreement presented through the employer failed to consist of a signature in the employer! I objected with the admission within the Agreement around the basis that it was not the best evidence; an agreement with no signature is virtually no contract!

The Referee's ruling on my own objection was quite startling and it is the inspiration about this article. I will not have been surprised if my objection was overruled according to the above mentined-mentioned importance of efficiency or something like that; for instance, the Referee could possibly have said that the employer's testimony identified the copy of Agreement as being a true and accurate copy in the original Agreement executed by, and applicable to, both sides irrespective of whether the signatures were present. Unfortunately, that is definitely not just what Referee ruled. He ruled that, by order of his superiors from the Department of Labor, the most beneficial evidence rule will no longer be applied at unemployment compensation hearings and, therefore, any objections made on that basis can be overruled.

If you happen to looking to learn more about ODJFS Unemployment Login visit our webiste.