UC - fair hearing - unrepresented party - duty of referee to assist - "full and fair hearing"

Scott v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – October 19, 2018 – unreported* memorandum opinion

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/419CD18_10-19-18.pdf?cb=1

Held:  Case remanded because claimant was not afforded a “full and fair hearing.”   The referee “precluded claimant from introducing potentially relevant evidence that would support his claim that he was discharged” rather than had quit his job.  The referee “could have taken a few minutes to review the additional documents [that] Claimant had submitted to the Service Center, given Claimant an opportunity to explain their relevance, and compared those documents to the claims [that] Claimatn sought to introduce, before precluding the evidence.”

Admission of evidence

In UC proceedings, the Referee has “wide latitude” regarding the admission of evidence. Creason v. UCBR, 554 A.2d 177, 179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). However, the Referee “is not free to disregard rules of evidence and if evidence is not relevant[,] the [R]eferee may exclude it.” Id. Despite this broad discretion, the Referee “may not improperly refuse to accept relevant competent and material evidence.” Healey v. UCBR, 387 A.2d 1025, 1027 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).

Duty to assist pro se claimant

The [R]eferee has a responsibility . . . to assist a pro se claimant at a hearing so that the facts of the case necessary for a decision may be adequately developed to “insure that compensation will not be paid in cases in which the claimant is not eligible and that compensation will be paid if the facts, thoroughly developed, entitled the claimant to benefits.” The [R]eferee, of course, need not advise a party on evidentiary questions or on specific points of law but must act reasonably in assisting in the development of the necessary facts, and any failure to develop an adequate record must be prejudicial to the claimant and not mere harmless error or else a reversal will not be found. Bennett v. UCBR, 445 A.2d 258, 259-60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982); see also 34 Pa. Code § 101.21(a).  While the Referee is not obligated to advocate on behalf of a pro se claimant, see Stugart v. UCBR, 85 A.3d 606, 609 (Pa. Cmwlth.  2014), the Referee is required to reasonably assist a pro se claimant in developing the necessary facts.

In this case, a key issue before the Referee was whether Claimant was discharged from his employment or whether he voluntarily quit.   Rather than assist Claimant, however, the Referee precluded Claimant from introducing potentially relevant evidence that would support his claim that he was discharged.   Because the Referee excluded both the missing Service Center documents and the emails, we do not know the extent of any overlap between the documents and the emails or whether any of that evidence was relevant to the issues before the Referee. The Referee could have taken a few minutes to review the additional documents Claimant had submitted to the Service Center, given Claimant an opportunity to explain their relevance, and compared those documents to the emails Claimant sought to introduce before precluding the evidence. Because the Referee 9 failed to take these steps, we conclude that she did not “act reasonably in assisting in the development of the necessary facts.” Hackler v. UCBR, 24 A.3d 1112, 1115 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

================

*An unreported Commonwealth Court case may not be cited binding precedent but can be cited for its persuasive value.  See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(b) and Pa. R.A.P.  3716

courts - jurisdiction - foreign corporation - registration in Pa. - consent

Murray v. American Lafrance, LLC – Pa. Super. – reported, published – September 25, 2018

majority        

dissent

Held:  A corporation consents to jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts when it registers as a foreign corporation under 42 Pa. C.S. 5301 (a) (2) (i-iii).

From the opinion

We observe that whether a foreign corporation consents to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by registering to do business in the Commonwealth is a matter of first impression in this Court. Our review of the caselaw has revealed that neither this Court nor our Supreme Court has had the occasion to determine whether, post-Daimler, registering to do business as a foreign corporation in the Commonwealth constitutes consent for the purposes of exercising general personal jurisdiction. However, Bors v.  Johnson & Johnson, 208 F. Supp. 3d 648 (E.D. Pa. 2016), provides a persuasive, well-reasoned analysis and we cite it with approval.

In Bors, supra, the district court considered whether Bane v. Netlink, Inc., 925 F.2d 637 (3d Cir. 1991),7 remained good law or whether Daimler eliminated consent by registration under section 5301 as a basis for jurisdiction. See Bors, supra at 653-54. The Bors court reasoned that “Pennsylvania’s statute specifically advises the registrant of the jurisdictional effect of registering to do business[,]” and concluded that “[c]onsent remains a valid form of establishing personal jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania registration statute after Daimler.” Id. at 655; see also Hegna v. Smitty’s Supply, Inc., 2017 WL 2563231, at *4 (E.D. Pa. filed June 13, 2017) (“conclud[ing] that, by registering to do business under § 5301, Smitty’s consented to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania and that its consent is still valid under Goodyear [Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011),] and Daimler.”).

In this case, Appellee registered as a foreign corporation to do business in Pennsylvania. (See Preliminary Objections, Exhibit B, at 1). In doing so, we hold that it consented to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. See Sulkava, supra at 889; Bors, supra at 655; see also Bane, supra at 640. Therefore, based on the relevant caselaw, and the language of section 5301(a), we conclude that the trial court erred when it dismissed these actions for lack of personal jurisdiction.8 Accordingly, we vacate the orders sustaining the preliminary objections, and remand these cases to the trial court.

debt collection - FDCPA -false, misleading - statement about IRS

Schultz v. Midland Credit Management – 3d Cir.- September 24, 2018

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172244p.pdf

A statement in a debt collection letter to the effect that forgiveness of the debt may be reported to the Internal Revenue Service constitutes a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692 et. seq. , particularly the threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. . . . The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. §§ 1692e(5), (10).

Whether a collection letter is “false, deceptive, or misleading” under § 1692e is determined from the perspective of the “least sophisticated debtor.” Brown, 464 F.3d at 453.

Here, the reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code is wholly inapplicable to the Schultzes’ debts because none of them totaled $600 or more, and IRS regulations clearly state that only discharges of debt of $600 or more “must” be included on a Form 1099-C and filed with the IRS. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.6050P-1(a).   By including the reporting language on collection letters addressing debts of less than $600, we believe that the least sophisticated debtor might be persuaded into thinking that the discharge of any portion of their debt, regardless of amount discharged, may be reportable.

Based on the foregoing, we will reverse the May 8, 2017, Order of the District Court as we find that the Schultzes have pled sufficient factual allegations that state a plausible claim upon which a court may grant relief under the FDCPA. We will therefore remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

==============