Opinion

Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Ceja

  • 493 Pa. 588
  • 427 A.2d 631
  • 1981 Pa. LEXIS 730
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Mar 13, 1981
Status
Published
Author
Flaherty
On the bench
Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Kauffman
Cited by
54 cases

stating that referees have an affirmative duty to afford claimants a reasonable opportunity to challenge hearsay evidence, and that a pro se party must be given “every assistance compatible with the impartial discharge of [the tribunal’s] official duties,” (quoting 34 Pa.Code § 101.21)

How later courts described this case

  • stating that referees have an affirmative duty to afford claimants a reasonable opportunity to challenge hearsay evidence, and that a pro se party must be given “every assistance compatible with the impartial discharge of [the tribunal’s] official duties,” (quoting 34 Pa.Code § 101.21)
  • "Once evidence is admitted under a recognized exception.. . the evidence is given full probative weight."
  • "Due process principles no doubt require that a party be - 10 - J -S80023-17 afforded a reasonable opportunity to challenge the reliability of adverse hearsay evidence."
  • “Fundamental due process requires that no adjudication be based solely upon hearsay evidence.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*619 FLAHERTY, Justice,

concurring.

Fundamental due process requires that no adjudication be based solely upon hearsay evidence. This tenet of our law is not a “technicality”, but rather lies at the root of the truth determining process. Our common law and statutory law recognize certain exceptions to the hearsay rule, and these exceptions could well be the subject of a degree of relaxation in an administrative type of adjudication. In this regard the hearing officer should be in a position to determine whether hearsay evidence which would constitute an exception to the hearsay rule should be admissible notwithstanding the absence of proper qualification. It might well be wise to permit the hearing officer to determine whether this type of hearsay evidence is “reliable”. In addition, reports, opinions, and statements of charge submitted by licensed professionals could be an exception. The majority opinion, however, in my view, goes too far and could lead to a determination of rights based upon rank hearsay. This result is repugnant to centuries of tradition. I must, therefore, concur only in the result.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.