Claimant established by clear and convincing evidence her common law marriage at time of decedent’s death: entitled to death benefits under Section 307 of the Act

In its appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the employer argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge failed to require the claimant to establish a common law marriage by clear and convincing evidence. The court rejected this argument and affirmed the decisions below, noting that it prospectively abolished common law marriages in Pennsylvania in PNC Bank Corporation v. WCAB (Stamos), 831 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) and that the legislature abolished common law marriages by amending §1103 of the Marriage Law, which went into effect on January 24, 2005. The court also noted that a party claiming a common law marriage does bear the burden of producing clear and convincing evidence of the exchange of words creating the marriage contract. The employer maintained that the judge incorrectly required the claimant to establish a common law marriage by substantial evidence. However, the court found that the employer was incorrectly equating an appellate review standard with the applicable burden of proof. Substantial evidence is the standard for ascertaining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a fact finder’s finding. The court concluded that the judge did not place an incorrect burden of proof on the claimant. Additionally, the court rejected the employer’s argument that the claimant’s testimony was prohibited by the Dead Man’s Act and, therefore, not clear and convincing evidence of common law marriage. The court pointed out that the employer never raised the Dead Man’s Act before the judge and did not object to testimony given by the claimant regarding the words exchanged at the ceremony creating the marriage contract. Therefore, the employer waived the issue on appeal. Finally, the court concluded that the documentary evidence postdating the 2005 abolishment of common law marriage was relevant to the issue of constant cohabitation and reputation of marriage following the claimant’s and decedent’s 2004 exchange of vows.

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}