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