Duty to conduct fair and impartial hearing
The General
Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure (GRAPP). See Section 56.1 of the
Pennsylvania Code, 31 Pa. Code § 56.1. Section 35.189 of GRAPP specifies: “It
is the duty of the presiding officer to conduct a fair and impartial hearing
and to maintain order.” 1 Pa. Code § 35.189.
Pro se litigants
This Court has
declared relative to Department hearings: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has
long held that ‘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.’ Vann v. UCBR . . . 494
A.2d 1081, 1086 ([Pa.] 1985) (quoting Groch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of
Review, . . . 472 A.2d 286, 288 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1984)).
Referee must be “unusually
cautious” with pro se litigant – make sure all issues fully and fairly examined
More recently, this Court clarified that, ‘referees
should reasonably assist pro se This Court has also concluded “that where a
person proceeding before an administrative agency is not represented by
counsel, the hearing officer must be unusually cautious to insure that all
issues are fully examined.” Zong v. Ins. Dep’t, 614 A.2d 360, 363 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1992). To that end, an administrative tribunal[] has the power to ask questions
to clarify matters and to elicit relevant information not presented by counsel.
Dayoub v. State Dental Council [&] Examining B[d., 453 A.2d 751, 753 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1982)]. [It] will have overstepped its bound only when it heatedly
questions and argues with [a party] and [his/her] witnesses ‘in such a manner
that [the presiding officer’s] behavior . . . [is] much more in line with that
of a prosecuting attorney than of a neutrally detached and impartial
decision-maker.’ [Id.]. Shah v. State Bd. of Med., 589 A.2d 783, 797 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1991).
In the instant
matter, the Presiding Officer “reasonably assist[ed] the litigant to elicit
facts that [were] probative for [her] case[,]” Hackler, 24 A.3d at 1115, to
ensure that both parties had the opportunity to fully present their cases.
There is no evidence that the Presiding Officer impermissibly advocated for the
litigant, assisted her in a manner that biased the proceedings, or gave the
appearance of impropriety. Rather, it is clear from the record that the
Presiding Officer was ensuring that all relevant facts were available for the
Commissioner’s review. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer did not irreparably
bias the proceedings or give the appearance of impropriety.
