The
Court reversed the UCBR and held that claimant was not ineligible under 43 PS
sec. 802(e.1), because the employer did
not present evidence to qualify a drug testing report (Report) as a business
record under 42 Pa. C.S. 6108(b).
Claimant objected to the Report as hearsay during the hearing.
Employer’s
witnesses offered no testimony about the testing procedures followed by the
Laboratory, such as the equipment used for the test, the testing process, the
technician’s qualifications, quality control safeguards, the drug levels tested
or the Laboratory’s accreditation. Rather, the witness simply stated that
Claimant tested positive for marijuana, and that he was discharged based upon
that test.
The
Report, a one-page document, is not notarized or verified and contains no
information relating to the Laboratory’s testing protocols, nor any statement
as to the steps taken by the Laboratory to safeguard the samples. There is no
evidence in the Report concerning the reliability of the oral testing method
employed in this case, nor any information correlating the concentration of marijuana
in the sample to the time elapsed since its ingestion. Put simply, the document
does not contain enough indicia of reliability on its face to be admitted as an
exception to the hearsay rule.
Employer
did not provide sufficient information that would “justify a presumption of
trustworthiness of the [Report]” and allow for it to be admitted as part of the
record. Id. Without the Report, there was insufficient evidence to
support the Board’s conclusion that Claimant failed the drug test.
________________________________________
The opinion,
though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as
binding precedent." 210
Pa. Code § 67.55. Citing Judicial
Opinions.
