Unemployment Compensation Hearings: Best Evidence Rule Not Too Great. d

Unemployment Compensation Referee's hearings, because of their nature as administrative hearings and of limited scope, traditionally have allowed a somewhat lax use 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 level. I stress the expression "lax," as opposed to say "eliminated," because rules of evidence may not be disposed of or vitiated, but simply given common sense application to some quasi-judicial hearing in regards to the very narrow issue of whether the first is entitled to receive government benefits during one's unemployment.

In most cases, easing high on the rules makes lots of sense as litigants, specially the newly cash strapped claimant, has not got the bucks to get in touch with experts, sub?na extensive records, or find and secure multiple witnesses. Indeed, an approach would find a way to only serve to mud the gears of an already overburdened Department of Labor regarding such generally simple issues. So, such as, some flexibility on hearsay is allowed, along with allowing the admission of medical records with out a medical expert, as well as allowing some "narrative" testimony, if perhaps for the practical intent behind bringing these matters to your relatively speedy and efficient close.

I feel the typical flexibility on the rules of evidence makes some sense and I generally do not possess an issue with it, especially since I have never had an experience the location where the flexibility with the rules concentrated 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 using a central issue causes me to lose a case, I had had pretty consistent success in owning the decision overturned by the Board of Review on appeal.

So, why am I writing all of this? Let us focus on a particular rule of evidence, specifically Rule 1002, which reads as follows:

A unique writing, recording, or photograph becomes necessary to be able to prove its content unless these rules, other rules prescribed via the Supreme Court, or a statute provides otherwise.

This rule is typically referred to as "the ideal evidence rule," and, as you can see it, approximately, requires the best available version or copy (or what have you ever) of some evidence will be produced with a hearing instead of a duplicate. So, by way of example, an authentic signed copy of your contract is obviously preferred to the duplicate. How this rule could well be employed is if a lawyer, through his witness, efforts to introduce that copy as evidence. The opposing attorney would object to the basis that this copy is not actually "the perfect evidence" and the judge would rule on if it was. In the event it had not been the most suitable evidence, the objection would generally be sustained and also the document will be inadmissible.

Not long ago i stood a case before an Unemployment Compensation Referee in Philadelphia. The opposition (the business) attempt to introduce a Collective Bargaining Agreement (which spelled out relevant issues towards case I became handling) into evidence. The copy of aforesaid Agreement presented through the employer failed to contain a signature coming from the employer! I objected for the admission with the Agreement in the basis so it had not been the top evidence; a binding agreement without signature is virtually no contract!

The Referee's ruling on my small objection was quite startling and its the inspiration of the article. I would not have been surprised if my objection was overruled according to these-mentioned dependence on efficiency or anything individuals; such as, the Referee might have stated that the employer's testimony identified the copy of Agreement as being a true and accurate copy from the original Agreement executed by, and applicable to, both sides regardless if the signatures were present. Unfortunately, that could be not specifically what the Referee ruled. He ruled that, by order of his superiors while in the Department of Labor, the top evidence rule will no longer be applied at unemployment compensation hearings and, therefore, any objections made on that basis will be overruled.

In the event you looking to read more about ODJFS Unemployment Login visit our webiste.