Finch v. Caldwell, 60209
| Decision Date | 23 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60209,60209 |
| Citation | 273 S.E.2d 216,155 Ga.App. 813 |
| Parties | FINCH v. CALDWELL et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Thomas S. Jefferson, Atlanta, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Kirby G. Atkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Melinda K. Wells, Atlanta, for appellees.
Denial of unemployment compensation. The claimant, Grady Finch, was employed by MARTA. Three of his supervisors detected what they considered a state of intoxication, either from alcohol or drugs, while Finch was on the job. Such misconduct warranted immediate discharge, which occurred. Following his discharge, Finch sought unemployment compensation. The initial administrative determination was that Finch was entitled to such compensation. MARTA appealed that determination to an Appeals Tribunal. The Appeals Tribunal reversed the initial determination of entitlement to compensation and made a finding of lack of entitlement to unemployment compensation. The notification to Finch of the date of the hearing before the hearing officer and the procedures to be followed contains the following significant instructions: The instructions were followed at the foot thereof with the final statement: "THE DECISION WILL BE BASED ON THE SWORN TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING."
At the hearing conducted before the Administrative Hearing Officer, Finch appeared pro se and MARTA was represented by a legal officer. MARTA's counsel introduced three disciplinary reports prepared by three of Finch's supervisors. Though these reports apparently were prepared by the supervisors as a report of discipline, there was no foundation laid that they were required to be prepared in the regular course of MARTA's business or that they were prepared or filed as business records. None of the documents were under oath. Though there was supportive evidence, these three documents were the only real basis of MARTA's case to show the cause for the discharge. Finch was sworn and testified that he was not intoxicated and had not consumed any intoxicants on the job. As indicated, the Administrative Hearing Officer was sustained by the Board of Review, denying Finch unemployment compensation. Finch appealed the adverse decision by the Board of Review to the superior court which also sustained the denial of compensation. In its order, the superior court held that the discipline reports were a part of Finch's work record and thus admissible and supportive of the Administrative Hearing Officer's conclusions. Finch bases his appeal on a contention that the three documents are nothing more than hearsay. Held :
As we view the instructions contained in the notification of the hearing sent to Finch, it is absolutely clear that the hearing before the Administrative Hearing Officer at the Appeals Tribunal was designed to be an adversarial proceeding. The claimant was offered the right to subpoena adverse as well as supportive witnesses. He was given the right to examine and cross examine witnesses and apparently the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forsyth Cnty. v. Mommies Props. LLC
...the superior court relied on Neal v. Augusta-Richmond County Pers. Bd. , 304 Ga. App. 115, 695 S.E.2d 318 (2010), Finch v. Caldwell , 155 Ga. App. 813, 273 S.E.2d 216 (1980), and also cited to HWA Properties Inc. v. Community & Southern Bank , 320 Ga. App. 334, 739 S.E.2d 770 (2013).15 On J......
-
Melman v. Fia Card Servs., N.A.
...1. Nyankojo v. North Star Capital Acquisition, 298 Ga.App. 6, 6–7, 679 S.E.2d 57 (2009) (footnote omitted). 2. See Finch v. Caldwell, 155 Ga.App. 813, 815, 273 S.E.2d 216 (1980) (noting that a challenge to the adequacy of the business records foundation can be waived); see generally Caves v......
-
Shaver v. State
...sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, so inadmissible for Confrontation Clause purposes), and comparing the Finch v. Caldwell, 155 Ga.App. 813, 815, 273 S.E.2d 216 (1980) and Glisson v. State, 188 Ga.App. 152, 155, 372 S.E.2d 462 (1988) cases, the dissent apparently suggests that the ou......
-
Kendrick v. State, A99A2303.
...recites facts rather than opinions, and so does not suffer from the defect of those disciplinary reports considered in Finch v. Caldwell, 155 Ga.App. 813, 273 S.E.2d 216. We need not, however, determine whether this disciplinary report would be admissible at a probation revocation hearing a......
-
Administrative Law
...was not available. Id. at 314 n.4, 713 S.E.2d at 438 n.4. 89. Id. at 313, 713 S.E.2d at 437.90. Id. (quoting Finch v. Caldwell, 155 Ga. App. 813, 815, 273 S.E.2d 216, 218 (1980)).91. Id. at 314, 713 S.E.2d at 437-38 (citing Citadel Corp. v. All-South Subcontractors, 217 Ga. App. 736, 738, 4......