Hahn v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - October 21, 2009 - unreported memorandum opinion
http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2262CD08_10-21-09.pdf
Subpoena duces tecum
The UCBR did not err in failing to enforce a subpoena duces tecum against the employer, where the phone company and not the employer was in possession of the relevant records.
Cost of producing records - 43 P.S. 826
The employer raised the excessive cost of producing records as an issue in the case. The decision did not involve this issue, but the court noted that "neither party in this case cites to or relies upon...43 P.S. § 826 [sec. 506 of the UC Law] to argue that the fee to be paid to [phone company] for production of the phone records should have been set by the Board and paid out of the Board’s Administration Fund.
Section 506 states, in relevant part: The department and the board shall have power to issue summons or subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, and other records deemed necessary as evidence in connection with a disputed claim or the administration of this act. . . . Witnesses subpoenaed pursuant to this act shall be allowed reasonable fees and expenses at a rate fixed by the department. Such fees and all expenses of proceedings involving disputed claims shall be deemed a part of the expense of administering this act and shall be paid from the Administration Fund. 43 P.S. § 826 (emphasis added). As neither party has argued that the Board should have fixed a fee for the production of the records, and paid such fee, we shall not address the issue sua sponte.
