OPINION BY
James Speight (Speight) appeals pro se frоm an order of the Department of Corrections (Department) requiring him to reimburse the Commonwealth in the amount of $5,979.85 assessed against his inmate account for costs stemming from his violation of established prison rules necessitating his hospitalization. Because the Department erroneously admitted hearsay evidence, we reverse.
Speight is currently an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Green in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. On March 13, 2008, Speight was issued Misconduct No. A824777 for chаrges of possession or use of a dangerous or controlled substance, possession of contraband, and tattooing or other forms of self-mutilation. Specifically, he took approximately 10 seizure pills (Depakene) in front of a nurse and corrections officer during the med line on F Block. He had to be taken to the infirmary and then to an outside hospital fоr treatment due to his actions.
Speight received notice on September 24, 2008, that an administrative assessment hearing would be held to determine the amount of the costs incurred to be deducted from his account. At the October 21, 2008 hearing, the hearing examiner explained the purpose of the hearing — to receive testimony as well as other evidence from both parties relevant to the assessment of costs as a result of Speight’s misсonduct. The Department’s witness, Leslie Wynn (Wynn), a Department accountant, presented three medical bills totaling $5,979.85. She stated that one bill was for the ambulance and the other two were from the hospital for various lab charges and the ICU. The bills werе not authenticated by sworn affidavit of the record keeper for the ambulance company or the hospital, nor did any witnesses appear on their behalf. Speight, appearing pro se, did not dispute the charges and did not present any evidence. After the hearing, the hearing examiner assessed Speight’s account $5,979.85.
Speight then appealed 1 the assessment of the Secretary of the Dеpartment arguing that he did not receive all due process to which he was entitled because he did not receive proper notice of the assessment; the documents to establish the amount of the assessment were insufficient becausе they omitted the identities of who prepared the bills; and that they were not authenticated through sworn invoices. The Secretary denied his appeal, and this appeal followed. 2
Speight contends that the Department failed to comply with due process at the assessment hearing because Wynn, the prison staff member, who did not author the contents of those documents, could not testify to the truth of their contents. He also argues that those documents eould not qualify under the business record exception to the hearsay rule because much of the information regarding the hospital’s identity was redacted аnd no qualified witness authenticated or appeared to testify as to its identity, mode of preparation, or whether it was prepared in the regular course of business at or near the time the bill was incurred. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108.
The Department does not contend that the medical bills were business records but instead argues that the medical bills were properly admitted into evidence as unobjected-to hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Bonegre v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board
(Bertolini’s),
In this case, all that Wynn did was go over each invoice and state the amount on the invoice. In the case of the invoice from the hospital where there were itemized amоunts, she indicated what each amount was for. The other two invoices merely had a total due. She could not identify who created the document and who redacted the information pertaining to the phone numbers and addresses. Because this Cоurt has previously held that corroboration of the unobjected-to document is required,
see Lee v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole,
Accordingly, the order of the Department is reversed. 4
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2010, the order of the Department of Corrections datеd March 9, 2009, is reversed.
Notes
. Speight requested a 30-day extension of time to file exceptions to the report, which was granted оn December 26, 2008.
. Our scope of review of the final order of an administrative agency is limited to determining whether constitutionаl rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantiаl evidence.
Mirarchi v. Department of Corrections,
. The Walker Rule is not truly a rule of evidence but based on the principle that fundamental due process requires that no adjudication be based solely upon hearsay evidence.
Buchanan v. Verbonitz,
. Speight also argues that he should not have been assessed costs because it would be a manifest injustice to assess costs upon him due to his mental illness. However, not only is that issue beyond this Court’s scope of review because Speight pled guilty to the misconduct for which he was assessed costs, but based on the outcome of this case, we need not address that issue.