Wagner
v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – March 11, 2015
This
claimant was hoisted by his own petard.
The
employer did not appear at the hearing, at which the issue was willful misconduct. Claimant did appear and testified. Some of the testimony was elicited by the
referee’s questions to claimant.
The
court rejected Claimant’s argument that the Referee should have adjourned the
hearing when Employer failed to appear and granted him unemployment
compensation. Claimant’s argument misconstrues both the assignment of the
burden of proof and the role of the Referee under the Law. A referee is charged with informing the
parties of their rights, the procedure to be followed, and with developing an
adequate record, which includes clearly establishing the allegations made and
the facts at issue to insure that compensation is paid in instances where a
claimant is eligible and that it is not paid where a claimant is ineligible
under the Law. Bennett v. UCBR, 445 A.2d 258, 259 (Pa. 1982); 1982); Hackler v. UCBR,
24 A.3d 1112, 1116 (Pa. Cmwth. 2011); Robinson v. UCBR, 431 A.2d 378,
379 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981); see also 34 Pa. Code § 101.21.
The
referee is not required to “advise an uncounseled claimant on specific
evidentiary questions or points of law, nor need the referee show any greater
deference to an uncounseled claimant than that afforded a claimant with an
attorney.” Brennan v. UCBR, 487 A.2d 73, 77 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (internal
citations omitted). In unemployment
compensation matters, “the assignment of the burden of proof to one or the
other party can only be understood as an indication of the quantum of evidence
required to sustain a result in a party’s favor. The question of the
sufficiency of the evidence must be examined against the complete record. The
effect of the claimant’s testimony remains the same whether presented before or
after an employer’s.” Vann v. UCBR, 494 A.2d at 1081, 1085 (Pa. 1985).
As this Court and our Supreme Court have repeatedly made clear, the referee is
not there to act as an advocate for the claimant and “any layperson choosing to
represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that his
lack of expertise and legal training will prove his undoing.” Id. at
1086 (quoting Groch v. UCBR, 472 A.2d 286, 288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984)).
A claimant’s admissions are sufficient to carry an employer’s
burden. Sargent v. UCBR, 630 A.2d 534, 537 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (“Employer
in this case did not present any evidence. Claimant, however, chose to testify
and [our] Supreme Court has made it clear that in such a situation a claimant’s
own testimony can be a basis to deny benefits.”); Robinson, 431 A.2d at
379 (“[claimant] himself admitted that he neither reported to work as
instructed on October 22 nor notified his employer of the reason for his
absence. It is, therefore readily apparent that claimant is guilty of willful
misconduct and that his employer has met its burden in that regard.”); Rodgers
v. UCBR, 397 A.2d 1286, 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (holding that the
claimant’s own testimony carried the employer’s burden of proof).
The evidence supporting the Board’s findings of fact consists
of documents submitted into the record by both Claimant and Employer, and
testimony offered by Claimant at the continued hearing and at the remand
hearing. Contrary to Claimant’s contention, Employer was not required to offer
testimony in order to carry its burden under the Law. Claimant had an
opportunity to object to the documentary evidence submitted by Employer and
declined to do so.
_________________________________
The opinion, though not
reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding
precedent." 210 Pa. Code 69.414.
If the case is not recent,
the link in this posting may not work. In that event, search for the case
by name and date on Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/,
where the opinions of all state appellate courts can be found.
