Opinion ID: 1245739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Burden of Proof on Substantiality of Employment Field

Text: (6) It has been repeatedly stated that the burden is generally on a claimant to prove his availability for work. ( Loew's Inc. v. California Emp. etc. Com. (1946) 76 Cal. App.2d 231, 238 [172 P.2d 938]; Ashdown v. State of California (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d 291, 300 [287 P.2d 176]; Spangler v. California Unemp. Ins. App. Bd. (1971) 14 Cal. App.3d 284, 287 [92 Cal. Rptr. 266]; but cf. Prescod v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 57 Cal. App.3d 29, 37-38 [127 Cal. Rptr. 540].) The allocation corresponds to the general rule that a party has the burden of proof as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which is essential to the claim for relief or defense that he is asserting. (Evid. Code, § 500.) However, this rule by its own terms applies only except as otherwise provided by law. [16] Thus we have held that Where the evidence necessary to establish a fact essential to a claim lies peculiarly within the knowledge and competence of one of the parties, that party has the burden of going forward with the evidence on the issue although it is not the party asserting the claim. ( Morris v. Williams (1967) supra, 67 Cal.2d 733, 760; see also Garcia v. Industrial Accident Com. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 689, 694 [263 P.2d 8].) We are satisfied here that the second step of the determination of availability  i.e., whether the claimant has made himself available to a substantial field of employment  calls for testimony regarding the size and character of the labor market which is peculiarly within the knowledge and competence of the department. The average unemployed claimant with obviously limited resources cannot be expected to provide evidence which may be relatively complicated, expert, or difficult to obtain regarding local and area economic conditions. Nor would it be efficient to require the presentation of such data in every case on an issue which might be the subject of dispute in but a few. Accordingly, once a claimant has shown he is available for suitable work which he has no good cause for refusing, the burden of proof on the issue of whether he is available to a substantial field of employment lies with the department. If the department believes that a given claimant, despite his availability for such suitable work, is nevertheless not attached to a labor market of sufficient dimension, it may be expected to explain its position and support it with appropriate evidence. [17]