Wisconsin Personnel Commission's             Digest of Decisions        March, 1999 Version

Sections 510 through 510.90

[Previous material]    [Next material]

510.01 Foundation

Sufficient foundation existed for the admission of three position descriptions where a witness testified that he had obtained them from his counterparts on other campuses and respondent was served with copies in advance of the hearing and had the opportunity to have presented any appropriate rebuttal evidence. Matthews v. UW & DER, 92-0820-PC, 1/25/94

510.04 Objection -- timeliness of

Appellant's argument, made after the proposed decision was issued, that reliance on information contained in position descriptions without supporting testimony from the incumbent is error, was late. Appellant did not raise a hearsay objection at hearing. Ostenso v. DER, 91-0070-PC, 4/13/94; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Ostenso v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-1571, 3/18/96; affirmed by Court of Appeals, Ostenso v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 96-1777, 1/29/98; Sanders v. DER, 90-0346-PC, 3/29/94; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Sanders v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-1407, 11/27/96

510.05 Exhibits

Complainant's summary of information gleaned from a second document was ruled inadmissible where complainant failed to provide a complete version of the second document. Complainant's attempt to submit the entire second document after hearing was rejected. Gygax v. DOR & DER, 90-0113-PC-ER, 12/14/94

An unemployment compensation decision is not admissible in Commission proceedings, pursuant to §108.101(1), Stats. Garner v. DOC, 94-0031-PC, 11/22/94; affirmed by Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Garner v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-013477, 11/28/95

Where an exam plan was submitted as a sealed exhibit by the Division of Personnel and the appellant was permitted to examine the document in advance of hearing in the Commission offices but was not permitted to make copies or detailed notes of the substance of plan, this was a reasonable arrangement given that the criteria set forth in plan was intended to be used in future examinations and could be an advantage to a person with access to the criteria. Holmblad v. Div. of Pers., & LAB, 78-169-PC, 1/30/79

510.06 Hearsay

Evidence, in hearsay form, of the basis for a panel interviewer’s belief that petitioner had problems with interpersonal skills, was proper where complainant conceded the underlying facts. If the evidence in question constituted hearsay, the ruling permitting it was consistent with §PC 5.03, Wis. Adm. Code, in light of petitioner’s concession. Postler v. Wis. Pers. Comm., et al, Dane County Circuit Court, 95CV003178, 10/9/96; affirmed by Court of Appeals, Postler v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 96-3350, 1/27/98

The hearing examiner was well within her discretion in barring evidence as to an alleged policy of respondent where the evidence was in the form of opinion evidence from a witness and was based solely on hearsay discussions with other supervisors. Postler v. Wis. Pers. Comm., et al, Dane County Circuit Court, 95CV003178, 10/9/96; affirmed by Court of Appeals, Postler v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 96-3350, 1/27/98

Evidence was properly admitted relating to the instances cited by the interview panel members as the basis for the opinion that petitioner lacked interpersonal skills. The concept of hearsay was inapplicable to the extent that such testimony was offered to show the basis of an interviewer's belief, as opposed to the truth of the matters asserted. Postler v. DOT, 94-0016-PC, 94-0024-PC-ER, 10/16/95; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Postler v. Wis. Pers. Comm., et al, 95CV003178, 10/9/96; affirmed by Court of Appeals, Postler v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 96-3350, 1/27/98

A chart compiled by complainant to reflect the results of a telephone survey he had made to state agencies to obtain statistical information relating to the use of a resume screen procedure as part of a selection process, was not received in the record, after objection, because complainant could offer no supporting documentation concerning the survey. Therefore, the document was a compilation of summaries of hearsay statements to complainant and could not reasonably be relied on for the purpose complainant intended. Balele v. DOC et al., 97-0012-PC-ER, 10/9/98

Position descriptions fall within an exception to hearsay as regularly-kept business records dated and signed as correct by the incumbent and the incumbent's supervisor. Ostenso v. DER, 91-0070-PC, 4/13/94; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Ostenso v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-1571, 3/18/96; affirmed by Court of Appeals, Ostenso v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 96-1777, 1/29/98; Sanders v. DER, 90-0346-PC, 3/29/94; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Sanders v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-1407, 11/27/96

While the Commission has discretion to permit hearsay, it was proper to exclude a statement that would be particularly prejudicial to the opposing party in terms of being denied the right to cross-examine the declarant. Ellis v. DER, 92-0548-PC, 3/9/94

Hearsay testimony was considered in an appeal from a disciplinary action, even though the evidence was multiple hearsay involving the remarks of convicted felons, where in a correctional setting, reasonable persons were more likely to rely on statements made by convicted felons than would be the case in the outside world, there was a good deal of other hearsay evidence on the same point in the record and the inmates in question were no longer in the institution. Kode v. DHSS, 87-0160-PC, 11/23/88

Statements that were made by a supervisor who was responsible for the hiring decision and were conveyed to the testifying witness by the other supervisor who participated in the hiring decision were not hearsay because they were made curing the scope of the employe's employment or agency with respondent, under §908.01(4)(b)4, Stats. Wolfe v. UW-Stevens Point, 84-0021-PC-ER, 10/22/86

Statements by a witness that were offered, in part, to impeach another witness' testimony regarding his failure to recall who had attributed certain discriminatory remarks to a supervisor and as such, were not subject to exclusion based on a hearsay objection pursuant to §908.01(4)(a), Stats. Wolfe v. UW-Stevens Point, 84-0021-PC-ER, 10/22/86

The record of a prior hearing on jurisdiction was not admissible over objection at a subsequent hearing on the merits since it constituted hearsay. State v. McFarren, 62 Wis. 2d 492 (1974).; Miller v. UW, 76-238, 8/30/79

The record of an unemployment compensation proceeding is hearsay and in the absence of a particular use that constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule it is inadmissible, State v. McFarren, 62 Wis. 2d 492 (1974); Kleisch v. DHSS, 78-151-PC, 1/23/79

It was not error to have received over a hearsay objection a report by an accounting firm summarizing its review of various files, particularly where the authors of the report were available for cross examination. Alff v. DOR, 78-227, 243-PC, 10/1/81; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Alff v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 81-CV-5489, 1/3/84; affirmed by Court of Appeals District IV, 84-264, 11/25/85; petition for review by Supreme Court denied, 2/18/86

510.07 Polygraph exam

The appellant was not barred from introducing results of her own polygraph examination because of the absence of stipulation, but opposing party was entitled to cross-examine polygraph examiner as to qualifications and training, conditions under which test was administered, limitations of and possibilities for error, and techniques of polygraphic interrogation, and, at the discretion of hearing examiner, any other matters deemed pertinent to the inquiry, with the ultimate decision on admissibility committed to the hearing examiner. Glaser v. DHSS, 79-66-PC, 79-PC-ER-63, 7/31/79

Christensen v. DHSS & DP, 77-62, 1/5/78

Commission will not enter an order over objection directing a polygraph examination of the opposing party’s witnesses. Christensen v. DHSS & DP, 77-62, 1/5/78

510.08 Relevance

The denial of the use of sick leave benefits and resultant action of treating the absence as unexcused is not a disciplinary action covered by §230.44(1)(c), Stats. However, to the extent the absence was one of the bases of a suspension that was properly appealed to the Commission, evidence relating to the unexcused absence would be relevant. Kanitz v. UW, 97-0019-PC, 5/21/97

Where it was undisputed that respondent relied on information contained in a 1988 position description when it classified a comparison position, a 1993 position description for the same position that was admitted into the record had limited relevance. Tiedeman & Marx v. DHSS & DER, 96-0073, 0085-PC, 4/24/97

In an appeal of a layoff decision, evidence relating to post-layoff notices of available work was relevant (but not determinative) to appellant's claim of bad faith. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94

In an appeal of a discharge decision, testimony relating to a previous violation which resulted in the imposition of a written reprimand was relevant, even though the appellant had not appealed from that discipline, where the previous violation was cited in the termination letter. However, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to overturn the prior discipline. Garner v. DOC, 94-0031-PC, 11/22/94; affirmed by Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Garner v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-013477, 11/28/95

Because the reallocation decision under appeal concerned a position which appellant occupied as of the effective date of the classification survey, evidence relative to his supervisor and work in a previous position was irrelevant. Ellis v. DER, 92-0548-PC, 3/9/94

Duties and responsibilities first assigned after the effective date of a classification decision are not relevant in a review of the correctness of that decision. Bloom v. DER, 92-0088-PC, 8/25/93

Evidence concerning the existence of administrative proceedings initiated by one of appellant's witnesses against the respondent was an appropriate factor in evaluating the credibility of the witness. The examiner's ruling sustaining an objection to the evidence was rescinded. Showsh v. DATCP, 87-0201-PC, 11/28/88; rehearing denied, 3/14/89; reversed on other grounds by Brown County Circuit Court, Showsh v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 89-CV-445, 6/29/90; affirmed by Court of Appeals, 90-1985, 4/2/91

Within the scope of a non-selection appeal, an appellant could contend that the (pre-certification) examination procedure was evidence of an attempt to appoint a "pre-selected" candidate. The appellant would be permitted to offer any evidence relevant to the non-selection decision, including, possibly, evidence relating to the examination. Allen v. DHSS & DMRS, 87-0148-PC, 2/12/88

Where appellant requested reclassification in April of 1984 from ES 4 to ES 5, the fact that appellant's position was reallocated to ES 5 as a result of the approval of new position standards for the ES series in April of 1985 as irrelevant to the issue before the Commission. Rasman v. DNR & DER, 85-0002-PC, 8/l/85

During the Commission's hearing on an appeal of a reclassification denial, consideration of the procedure followed by the respondent in making its findings would serve no useful purpose and would have no probative value in relation to the merits of the appeal because the Commission's hearing on an appeal is a de novo proceeding and the facts to be considered are not limited to the findings made by the respondent in its review of the request. Rasman v. DNR & DER, 85-0002-PC, 8/1/85

Review of the procedure followed by the respondent in reaching a reallocation decision would serve no useful purpose and would have no probative value in relation to the ultimate issue of the appropriate classification of the appellant's positions. Ellsworth & Parrell v. DP, 83-0021, 0022-PC, 8/23/83

Where appellant was appealing his non-appointment on the theory that the entire selection process, including the examination, was "wired", and where appellant did not file a timely appeal from action which allegedly occurred during the examination process, appellant is not precluded from introducing evidence relating to the examination which may be relevant to the question of whether the appointment decision was illegal or an abuse of discretion. Rowe v. DER, 79-202-PC, 6/3/80

The Commission sustained respondent's objections to evidence seeking to demonstrate that the employer had failed to take any action to place the appellant in new positions in the agency of which the respondent was aware many months prior to appellant's lay off. The Commission overruled respondent's objection to evidence seeking to show that respondent was not diligent in attempting to place the appellant in a position subsequent to his lay off. Ruff v. Wisconsin Investment Board, 78-30-PC, 5/15/79

In an appeal of a non-appointment decision, respondent's objection to the consideration of any evidence relating to earlier non-appointments of the appellant was denied. However, the Commission held that it would not be appropriate, in the absence of unusual circumstances, to receive evidence that would require that the whole underlying transaction in essence be litigated and went on to provide examples of admissible and inadmissible evidence. Glasnapp v. DHSS, 78-249-PC, 1/16/79

510.09 Motion to suppress/motion in limine

Where complainant, who was asked to resign from her employment as an assistant district attorney (ADA) after her arrest for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and while on call and carrying an office beeper, contended she was held to a different standard while carrying the beeper than two male ADAs, complainant was entitled to offer evidence tending to show differential treatment of the two male ADAs with respect to other terms and conditions of complainant's employment, including caseload and performance expectations. However, evidence relating to caseloads and performance standards for other ADAs (i.e. other than the complainant and the two specified males) and by the district attorney was cumulative, repetitive and too tangential to the essence of complainant's contentions to have reasonable probative value. Evidence relating to the manner in which drunk driving arrests of employes were handled by other employers would not have reasonable probative value. Respondent's motion in limine was denied in part and granted in part. Christie v. Office of the District Attorney of Fond du Lac County, 96-0003-PC-ER, 2/25/98

In investigating possible misuse of state property, respondent was not required to advise the appellant that the information he provided could not be used against him in criminal proceedings, where criminal prosecution was apparently never considered by respondents and was never perceived by the appellant as a hazard. Oddsen v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, 108 Wis. 2d 143 (1982), distinguished. Blake v. DHSS, 82-208-PC, 1/4/84

Complainant's motion, made during the hearing, to strike certain evidence because respondent allegedly failed to include the information in its responses to complainant's discovery requests, was denied where, despite instructions from the hearing examiner, the complainant failed to provide sufficient specificity to decide the motion. Rufener v. DNR, 93-0074-PC-ER, etc., 8/4/95

In a reallocation appeal, the appellant waived his right to offer evidence relating to the first of two allocation patterns identified at the higher classification level when his answer to respondent's interrogatories indicated he was only pursuing the second allocation pattern and he had reiterated this position in a telephone conference 10 days prior to hearing. The appellant was permitted to present evidence on both allocations solely for the purpose of making a complete record for court review. Welch v. DER, 92-0630-PC, 5/16/94

The fact that a test (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), which served as a basis for a psychiatric evaluation, had been lost did not preclude testimony by the psychiatrist about the evaluation or the test, but could affect the weight accorded the testimony. Motion in limine denied. Boinski v. UW-Milwaukee, 92-0233-PC-ER, 92-0702-PC, 4/19/93 (Ruling by examiner)

Petitioner's motion in limine with respect to evidence relating to her visits to the Personnel Commission, her conversations with Commission staff as well as conversations about the petitioner amongst Commission staff was denied where the Commission could not conclude that evidence concerning the observations and concerns of Commission staff that were transmitted to the employer would have no probative value, where they were allegedly part of respondent's motivation for requiring a psychological exam of the petitioner and were allegedly cited in the termination letter. The evidence sought did not fit within the confines of conciliation efforts and no other recognized privilege had been asserted or appeared to be involved. Iwanski v. DHSS, 89-0074-PC-ER, etc., 12/2/91

Motion to suppress the information obtained from the investigation was denied. Blake v. DHSS, 82-208-PC, 1/4/84

510.10 Expert Testimony

The qualifications of appellant's expert witness who had extensive academic credentials and was a published author in the area of job classification and classification systems did not "distinctly over shadow" the qualifications of respondent's experts who had a number of years of experience working on a daily basis with the state classification system. Kennedy et al. v. DP, 81-180,etc-PC, 1/6/84

510.11 Materiality

Where the issue for hearing agreed to by the parties during the prehearing conference referred to the classifications of Program Assistant 2 and Educational Services Intern, and the respondent's representative recounted the discussion which had occurred during the prehearing and noted that respondents had prepared for hearing only on the basis of the PA 2 and ESI classifications, evidence relating to the PA 3 classification was not considered. Darland v. UW & DER, 89-0160-PC, 7/12/90

In an appeal of a layoff decision, the Commission denied respondent's motion to exclude evidence relating to appellant's argument that ostensible program decisions were in fact motivated by an intention to effectuate a layoff decision that would adversely affect the appellant, although the same program decisions may not be reviewed for the purpose of determining if they are defensible from purely a policy standpoint. Kuter v. DILHR, 82-0083-PC, 5/23/85

In an appeal of a layoff decision, the Commission denied respondent's motion to exclude evidence of a written commitment made by appellant's superior that the office organizational structure would remain the same as long as the appellant wished to remain in the office. Such evidence relates to a determination of whether respondent's layoff decision was arbitrary and capricious especially in light of respondent's apparent ability to exempt appellant from layoff. Kuter v. DILHR, 82-0083-PC, 5/23/84

510.15 Official notice

The Commission rejected a request to take notice of exhibits tendered in a separate case which were not offered at the subject hearing, where the exhibits did not fall within the scope of administrative or official notice established in §227.45, Stats. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94

Sections in the Department of Employment Relations manual relating to the procedure used by DER in reviewing an agency's request to fill a position do not fall within the scope of administrative or official notice established in §227.45, Stats. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94

The concept of administrative notice is not so broad as to allow the Commission to rely on information from file documents which were outside the record and unconfirmed at hearing. Appellant requested the Commission to take notice of his "frustration," as reflected in letters in the case file, to support his equitable estoppel claim. Miller v. DER, 92-0095, 0851-PC, 9/9/94; Riley v. DER, 92-0097, 0849-PC, 9/9/94

The Commission could not take official notice of a DHSS manual which was not part of the hearing record. The manual, which was attached to a post-hearing brief, was neither a generally recognized fact nor an established technical or scientific fact, within the meaning of s. 227.45(3), Stats. The argument was rejected that the manual was a "generally recognized fact" solely because it was subject to the public records law in s. 19.32(2), Stats. Respondent objected to the document because it was not exchanged prior to hearing. Harron v. DHSS, 91-0204-PC, 9/26/92

510.20 Attorney-client privilege

A supervisor who, in a deposition, testified that she had refreshed her recollection by referring to her notes which constituted a communication between respondent's agents and respondent's attorney, waived the attorney-client privilege as to those notes. Complainant's motion to compel production of the notes was granted. Harris v. DHSS, 84-0109-PC-ER, 85-0115-PC-ER, 4/22/87

510.50 Res judicata/collateral estoppel (see also 717.3)

The doctrine of claim preclusion holds that a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings. In order for earlier proceedings to act as a claim preclusive bar in relation to the present suit, three criteria must be satisfied: 1) an identity between the parties or their privies in the prior and present suits; 2) an identity between the causes of action in the two suits; 3) a final judgment on the merits in a court of competent jurisdiction. Wisconsin courts apply the transactional rule in determining whether the claims or causes of action in the two cases are sufficiently identical: a basic factual situation generally gives rise to only one cause of action, no matter how many different theories of relief may apply. The cause of action is the fact situation on which the first claim was based. If the present claim arose out of the same transaction as that involved in the former action, the present claim is barred even though the plaintiff is prepared in the second action to present evidence or grounds or theories of the case not presented in the former action, or to seek remedies or forms of relief not demanded in the first action. In sum, the purpose of the claim preclusion doctrine is to prevent multiple litigation of the same claim, and it is based on the assumption that fairness to the defendant requires that at some point litigation involving the particular controversy must come to an end. Balele v. Wis. Pers. Comm. et al., Dane County Circuit Court, 98-CV-0257, 8/10/98

The doctrine of issue preclusion refers to the effect of a judgment in precluding re-litigation in a subsequent action of an issue of law or fact that has been actually litigated and decided in a prior action. The doctrine does not operate to provide a basis for a cause of action, but is, instead, an additional means by which all or part of a cause of action may be dismissed. Issue preclusion, unlike claim preclusion, does not require an identity of the parties. Issue preclusion is a narrower doctrine than claim preclusion and requires courts to conduct a fundamental fairness analysis before applying the doctrine. In order for earlier proceedings to act as an issue preclusive bar in relation to the present suit, there must be an identity between the causes of action in the two suits. Balele v. Wis. Pers. Comm. et al., Dane County Circuit Court, 98-CV-0257, 8/10/98

The Commission improperly applied the doctrine of res judicata. The doctrine is not viable in administrative law, citing Board of Regents v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 103 Wis. 2d 545, 552 (Court of Appeals, 1981). DER v. Wis. Pers. Comm. (Klepinger), Dane County Circuit Court, 85-CV-3022, 1/2/86 & 1/20/86

The Commission lacked jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement entered into between the respondent and the former position incumbent (the agreement setting 1979 as the effective date for reallocation of the position) where the case at bar was brought by the current position incumbent and the Commission had found that irrespective of any settlement agreement, the correct effective date for reallocating the former incumbent's position was in 1983. The court held that the settlement agreement did not have a res judicata effect on the current incumbent's appeal. DER v. Wis. Pers. Comm. (Klepinger), Dane County Circuit Court, 85-CV-3022, 1/2/86 & 1/20/86

Neither issue preclusion nor claim preclusion arose from the appeal of respondent’s decision to deny appellant’s request to reclassify his position from Engineering Specialist - Transportation - Advanced 1 to Civil Engineering - Transportation - Advanced 1, effective March 7, 1993, to bar appellant’s subsequently processed appeal from the decision to reallocate his position in 1990 to Engineering Specialist Transportation - Advanced 1 rather than Advanced 2. The two cases involved different classifications, different effective dates and different classification actions. Mueller v. DOT & DER, 93-0109-PC, 2/27/97

Circuit Court's finding in criminal case in which appellant was defendant had collateral estoppel effect in regard to the factual finding that respondent's activities with respect to certain witnesses constituted improper intimidation of and interference with those witnesses, but not in regard to the conclusion that these activities prevented appellant from getting a fair trial (hearing) and mandated his reinstatement to employment. Gibas v. DOJ, 92-0247-PC, 10/5/93

Where discharged employes pursued contractual grievances wherein they alleged that they had been the subjects of racial discrimination, and harassment or retaliation, the doctrine of res judicata was applied to prevent them from relitigating these matters before the Commission in a proceeding under §230.45(l)(b), Stats. Lee & Jackson v. UW-Milw., 81-PC-ER-11,12, 10/6/82

Decision in personnel appeal of probationary termination is not conclusive as to companion equal rights case because of different statutes and legal standards governing each proceeding. Laxton v. DOT, 79-PC-ER-65, 12/4/79

Certain findings made following prior hearing on jurisdiction may be binding on parties with respect to subsequent hearing on merits. Miller v. UW, 76-238, 8/30/79

Personnel board decision of an investigation request was not conclusive as to a commission appeal of the same transaction because appellant was not a party to the investigation request and because of different statutes and legal standards governing each proceeding. Ray v. UW, 78-129-PC, 3/9/79

Findings made in an unemployment compensation decision cannot have collateral estoppel effect as to a Commission appeal because of the different statutes and legal standards governing each proceeding. Kleisch v. DHSS, 78-151-PC, 1/23/79

An unemployment compensation decision cannot have res judicata effect as to a personnel commission appeal because of the different statutes and legal standards governing each proceedings. Kleisch v. DHSS, 78-151-PC, 1/23/79

510.90 Other

Where appellant, who did not have the burden of proof, did not appear at the hearing on whether she was entitled to fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, she was deemed to have admitted the accuracy of the evidence adduced at the hearing, pursuant to §PC 5.03(8), Wis. Adm. Code. There were no indicators of credibility issues as to the witnesses who did appear, such as inconsistent testimony. Klemmer v. DHFS, 97-0054-PC, 10/9/98

While a case may not be decided upon evidence or information obtained without the presence of the appellants, the Commission may choose to analyze a case in a manner that is consistent with previous Commission decisions, even though the appellants were not parties to those earlier cases. Prior decisions of the Commission are available to the public and are accessible via the Commission’s Digest of Decisions. Tiedeman & Marx v. DHSS & DER, 96-0073, 0085-PC, 4/24/97

Complainant’s answers to interrogatories were properly admissible as exhibits at hearing rather than being admitted only for purposes of impeachment. Van Zutphen v. DOT, 90-0141-PC-ER, 12/20/96

While the Commission can consider to some extent the legal aspects of a decision issued in another case involving the same class specifications, such as its interpretation of the classification specifications, it cannot consider the findings in making its factual determinations. Giving preclusive effect to the findings would not be appropriate because there was no showing that appellant was a party to that proceeding or was in a position to have obtained judicial review of it. Vakharia v. DNR & DER, 95-0178-PC, 12/20/96

Where, in preparation for hearing on appeals arising from reallocation decisions, respondent propounded interrogatories to appellants, through their counsel, seeking to determine which of two allocations the nine individual appellants claimed to meet, five appellants identified the first allocation and four the second, and it was not until after the hearing was underway that appellants asked that they not be bound by their answers, the appellants were held to their answers to the interrogatory. The interrogatory addressed a major issue of litigation strategy and respondent had the right to rely on the answers. Appellants offered no reasons why the initial answers did not reflect their subsequent position or why they did not raise the issue until well after the commencement of the hearing. Von Ruden et al. v. DER, 91-0149-PC, etc., 8/31/95

The Commission is not obliged to accept uncontroverted testimony as true. Thomas v. DER, 94-0070-PC, 12/22/94


While this digest has been prepared by Personnel Commission staff for the convenience of interested persons, it should be remembered that the decisions themselves are the ultimate source of Commission precedent.

[Personnel Commission homepage]    [PC Digest Introduction]

[Previous material]    [Next material]